Ireton v. Pennsylvania Co.
Decision Date | 07 February 1911 |
Docket Number | 2,063. |
Parties | IRETON et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Orville S. Brumback (Clem V. Hoke, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Wheeler & Bentley and Marshall & Fraser, for defendants in error.
Before SEVERENS and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges, and DENISON, District judge.
The plaintiff commenced this action in the court of common pleas for the county of Van Wert, state of Ohio, against the Pennsylvania Company to recover damages suffered from a fire caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of its railroad on its line adjacent to a lot of the plaintiff's on which were an elevator, warehouse, and other buildings and a large quantity of personal property consisting of machinery, grain, flour, and other items, which it is alleged were destroyed by fire. The negligence complained of was the emitting of sparks from a locomotive engine which were blown over the buildings and set them on fire.
The plaintiff joined also as defendants some 14 insurance companies who had issued policies on the property destroyed. In the petition, having stated its cause of action against the Pennsylvania Company, the ground on which the insurance companies were joined is stated as follows:
The answer of the Pennsylvania Company denies the allegation of negligence contained in the petition. The defendant insurance companies filed answers which were all alike and of which that of the Allemania Fire Insurance Company is a sample. It is here reproduced:
The Pennsylvania Company filed in the state court a petition for removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio on the ground that it had a separable controversy with the plaintiffs in the suit which could be determined without the presence of the other defendants. The case was removed, and, on the filing of the transcript in the Circuit Court of the United States, the plaintiffs to the action and the Allemania Fire Insurance Company made separate motions to remand the case to the state court, because, as was alleged, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case on the ground of diverse citizenship; but the motions were denied. The case was brought on for trial before a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants whereupon a judgment was entered in the following form:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
...Co. v. U. S., 270 U. S. 349, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624. An assignment that judgment is contrary to law is not reviewable. Ireton v. Penn. Co. (C. C. A.) 185 F. 84; Craig v. Dorr (C. C. A.) 145 F. 307; U. S. v. Gordin (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 394; Smith v. Hopkins (C. C. A.) 120 F. 921; Humphr......
-
Pennok Oil Co. v. Roxana Petroleum Co. of Oklahoma
... ... indefinite to raise any question for review. United ... States v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (C.C.A.) 270 F. 1; ... Ireton et al. v. Pennsylvania Co., 185 F. 84, 107 ... C.C.A. 304; Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v ... Bomberger, 130 F. 884, 65 C.C.A. 64; United ... ...
-
Babcock v. Norton
...v. Corey Bros. Construction Co. (C. C. A.) 205 F. 282; Lamon v. Speer Hardware Co., 190 F. 734, 111 C. C. A. 462; Ireton v. Pennsylvania Co., 185 F. 84, 107 C. C. A. 304; Ibbs v. Archer, 185 F. 37, 107 C. C. A. 141; Provident Life & Trust Co. v. Camden, 177 F. 854, 101 C. C. A. 68; Lewis v.......
-
United States v. Bowling
... ... indefinite to be considered. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co ... v. Anderson, 168 F. 901, 94 C.C.A. 241; Ireton v ... Pennsylvania Co., 185 F. 84, 107 C.C.A. 304; Craig ... v. Dorr, 145 F. 307, 76 C.C.A. 559; Chicago Terminal ... Transfer R. Co. v ... ...