68 F. 945 (S.D.Ohio 1895), 4,801, Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia Straw-Paper Co.

Docket Nº:4,801.
Citation:68 F. 945
Party Name:HOOVER & ALLEN CO. v. COLUMBIA STRAW-PAPER CO.
Case Date:July 22, 1895
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 945

68 F. 945 (S.D.Ohio 1895)

HOOVER & ALLEN CO.

v.

COLUMBIA STRAW-PAPER CO.

No. 4,801.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

July 22, 1895

Little & Spencer, for plaintiff.

Kittredge, Wilby & Simmons, for defendant.

SAGE, District Judge.

Motion to remand overruled for the following reasons:

First. Although the plaintiff's claim, upon which the attachment was issued from the state court, is for less than $2,000, the removing defendant, George P. Jones, receiver of the defendant company, was made a defendant in the state court upon supplemental petition, on the ground that by virtue of his receivership he claimed an interest in the property attached, and in the controversy pertaining thereto, adverse to the plaintiff. The claim of the receiver is that he is entitled to the exclusive possession and control of the attached property. He has no interest whatever in the matter of the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant company, and is not authorized to represent that company in that behalf. The value of the attached property far exceeds $2,000, according to the appraisement made, in pursuance of the statute, when the attachment was levied. The value is to govern in determining the amount in controversy so far as it relates to the right of the receiver to remove the case to this court. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 43 F. 545. In that case a bill was filed to quiet title, and it was held that, for the purpose of determining the jurisdictional amount, the whole value of the property, the possession and enjoyment of which was threatened by defendant, was the measure of the value of the matters in controversy.

Second. It was further objected that the circuit court of the United States at Chicago, which appointed the receiver, had no jurisdiction in the case, for the reason that the original bill shows that the Northern Trust Company is and was a citizen of the state of Illinois, and Ovid B. Jamison is and was a citizen of the state of Indiana. These two are the plaintiffs; and the defendant, the Columbia Straw-Paper Company, is a corporation and citizen of the state of New Jersey. It is contended, under the doctrine of Smith v.

Page 946

Lyon, 133 U.S. 315, 10 Sup.Ct. 303, cited with approval in Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Walthers, 134 U.S. 44, 10 Sup.Ct. 485, that the court had no jurisdiction, and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP