Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Coffey
Decision Date | 14 January 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 2891.,2891. |
Citation | 37 F.2d 320 |
Parties | CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. COFFEY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Samuel H. Williams and Armistead R. Long, both of Lynchburg, Va. (Harrison, Long & Williams, of Lynchburg, Va., on the brief), for appellant.
Charles Curry, of Staunton, Va. (Curry Carter, of Staunton, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WADDILL, PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
This is a suit brought by appellee, who was plaintiff below, against appellant, who was defendant below, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. The defendant owns and operates a line of railroads running through both the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia, with its chief office in Richmond, in the said Eastern District. The plaintiff, who was a citizen of the state of Florida, claimed to have been injured by having her back broken while crossing the defendant's railroad track in an automobile, driven by another, at a grade crossing within the corporate limits of the town of Glasgow, in Rockbridge county, Va., in said Western District. The automobile in which the plaintiff was riding was traversing what was known as the Lexington and Lynchburg road. Plaintiff was a member of a party consisting of a number of persons who had been on a pleasure trip to Natural Bridge, and was returning from there when the accident happened.
The injury to the plaintiff occurred on September 12, 1926. This suit was instituted on September 8, 1927, only a few days before the Virginia Statute of Limitations, as to actions of this character, would have run against this suit. A summons was issued on the day the suit was brought and served on defendant, and required defendant to appear at the first October, 1927, rules. The declaration was filed at the first October rules, but the defendant made no appearance at rules. Defendant's first appearance was on January 2d, the first day of the term of the District Court, at Lynchburg, at which time an appearance was made by counsel for the defendant, and an order was entered giving leave to the plaintiff to amend her declaration so as to correct a mistake in her given name, which order concluded as follows:
"And thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, filed its plea of not guilty, and the defendant is given thirty days from this date within which to file its plea of contributory negligence."
This concluding paragraph was admittedly written into the order by one of the attorneys for the defendant.
On January 7th, notice was given, by attorneys for the defendant, of a motion to be made on January 16th, for leave to withdraw the plea of the general issue entered on January 2d, and to file a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, under section 52, Judicial Code (28 USCA § 113). This motion was made and argued before the court, and the judge below refused leave to the defendant to withdraw the plea.
On March 8, 1928, attorneys for plaintiff asked leave to file an amended declaration, which leave was granted, and the declaration was amended so as to allege that the plaintiff was a citizen as well as an inhabitant of the state of Florida; the original declaration having stated that she was an inhabitant of that state. On March 24th, the defendant, by counsel, appearing solely for the purpose of making the motion, again moved that it be allowed to withdraw its appearance because of the filing of amended declaration, which motion was overruled.
A demurrer to the declaration was overruled and leave given to further amend the declaration so as to strike out the allegation that the defendant resided in the Western District of Virginia. Again the defendant demurred to the amended declaration, and the demurrer was overruled. On motion of the plaintiff the defendant filed a written statement of its ground of defense, and on motion of the defendant the plaintiff filed a bill of particulars.
In January, 1929, a trial was had, and the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $25,000. Motion was made to set aside the verdict, which motion was overruled and judgment entered for the plaintiff, from which action of the court below this appeal was taken.
The first assignment of error is that the court erred in denying the defendant's motion for leave to withdraw its appearance and plea of general issue, and to file instead a plea to the jurisdiction of the court; it being contended that the court had a discretionary power to grant such permission. Power of the court to permit withdrawal of appearance and withdrawal of plea of general issue is usually discretionary. 4 C. J. 1371; Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank (D. C.) 291 F. 659; Audenried v. East Coast Milling Co. (C. C.) 124 F. 697.
It makes no difference whether the court had, under the Virginia statute, such power or not, as the judge below denied the motion, and we think properly did so. In an opinion passing on the motion the learned judge below said:
A general appearance and a plea to the merits waive any right to object to venue.
See, also, 15 Rose's Notes, pp. 785, 786, 787, and 788.
"The objection that a particular Federal circuit court is without jurisdiction of a suit between citizens of different states because neither of the parties is a resident of the district is waived by demurring upon grounds reaching to the merits of the cause of action in addition to jurisdictional grounds, where, under the local practice, defendant could have made a special appearance by motion aimed at the jurisdiction of the court over his person, or by motion to quash the service of process." Western Loan & Savings Co. v. Butte & Boston Consolidated Mining Co., 210 U. S. 368, 28 S. Ct. 720, 52 L. Ed. 1101.
On this question Judge Waddill, speaking for the court, in Wetzel & T. Ry. Co. v. Tennis Bros. Co. (C. C. A.) 145 F. 458, 464, 7 Ann. Cas. 426, said:
"Nothing is better settled than that after a plea in bar, a plea in abatement will not be received, except for new matter arising after the commencement of the suit."
See authorities cited.
The Virginia statute on this question is found in the Acts of the Virginia Assembly of 1920, at page 28, and reads as follows:
In Wetzel & T. Ry. Co. v. Tennis Bros. Co., supra, this court held under a West Virginia statute, in effect, similar to the Virginia statute, that a plea in abatement would not be received after a general appearance and after a plea in bar.
In St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Lucy McBride et al., supra, the court said:
The second assignment of error is that the court erred in overruling defendant's objection to the jurisdiction of the court under the amended declaration, changing the allegation that the plaintiff was an inhabitant of the state of Florida to one that she was a citizen of the state of Florida. On this point the judge below said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. Pullman Co.
...questions as to whether or not a bill of complaint states facts showing the jurisdiction of a district court: Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Coffey, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 320, 324; Bison State Bank v. Billington, 5 Cir., 228 F. 116, 117; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 6 Cir., 73 F. 519, 521; Ca......
-
Johnson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Branford
...appeals and thereby submitting it to the jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly, we reason as did another court in Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Coffey, 37 F.2d 320 (4th Cir.), that there is no logic 'in punishing the negligence of . . . (the plaintiff) so severely as to bar the plaintiff's re......
-
MacGowan v. Barber, 225.
...Contracting Corporation v. Davies, 5 Cir., 287 F. 776; Interstate Refineries, Inc., v. Barry, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 548; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Coffey, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 320. That made the service good under § 57 as it would have been had the bill originally been drawn and served in its amende......
-
Martin v. Lain Oil & Gas Co.
...the trial court has reasonable discretionary control over the case in matters of appearances and timely pleading. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Coffey, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 320. Here the objection to venue was filed by leave of court before the motion or any phase of it had been presented to the cou......