884 F.2d 1387 (4th Cir. 1989), 89-2617, Bosley v. Dairymen, Inc.
|Citation:||884 F.2d 1387|
|Party Name:||Kenneth T. BOSLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Webster Bosley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAIRYMEN, INC., Defendant-Appellee,and Daniel M. Bosley, Defendant.|
|Case Date:||July 24, 1989|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted May 15, 1989.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, District Judge. (CA-88-650).
Kenneth T. Bosley, appellant pro se.
William Lee Farrar, Jr., John F. Sherlock, III, Alagia, Day, Marshall, Mintmire & Chauvin, for appellee Dairymen, Inc.
Charles E. Brooks for defendant Daniel M. Bosley, Sr.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth T. Bosley (Bosley) brought this action in federal district court challenging the Maryland state court's determination regarding the ownership of a herd of cattle and his status as personal representative of the estate of his late father, Webster Bosley. The state court determined that the herd of cattle, which had once belonged to Webster Bosley, belonged at the time of Webster Bosley's death to Daniel M. Bosley, Sr., Bosley's brother, rather than to Webster Bosley's estate. The state court also removed Bosley from his position as the personal representative of Webster Bosley's estate for failure to comply with a Maryland statute which requires personal representatives to file inventories of estates with the court within a specified period of time.
Bosley asserted, as bases of jurisdiction, four alternatives. First, he alleged that there was federal question jurisdiction because he had contracted to sell the cattle to the United States Department of Agriculture under a federal whole-herd buyout program, a fact which was irrelevant to the issues presented in the case. Next, he alleged diversity jurisdiction; however, diversity was not complete. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Third, he contended that the state court had erred in its evaluation of evidence presented in both cases; however, this does not present a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Finally, he alleged that the district...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP