Abel v. Book
| Decision Date | 05 February 1903 |
| Parties | ABEL v. BOOK et al. |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington |
W. H Abel, in pro. per.
J. C Cross, for defendants.
The defendants have attempted to remove this case from the state court in which it was commenced into this court by a joint petition for removal, filed after one of them had forfeited the right of removal by suffering the time within which he could exercise the right to elapse, and by defensive proceedings in the state court. The plaintiff now moves to remand the case on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction. There is no separable controversy which would entitle the other defendants to claim the right of removal and there is no contention that the case was removed on the ground of a separable controversy. Hence it is necessary for all the defendants to unite in claiming the right of removal and the question presented by the motion to remand is whether the case could be lawfully removed, after one of several defendants who might originally have claimed the right has suffered the time within which he might have exercised his right to elapse, so as to bar him from filing a petition for removal if he were the sole defendant. It is my opinion that, since all the defendants are required to join in the petition for removal, the case is governed by the principle first laid down, in the opinion of the supreme court by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267, 2 L.Ed. 435, that it is essential to federal jurisdiction, when claimed on the ground of diversity of citizenship of the parties, that:
'Each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts; that is, that, where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue or liable to be sued, in those courts.'
See, also, Ex parte Girard, Fed. Cas. No. 5,457; Roberts v. Navigation Co. (C.C.) 104 F. 577.
The same principle was applied by the supreme court in the case of Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U.S. 408, 6 Sup.Ct. 426, 29 L.Ed. 679. The concluding part of the opinion by Chief Justice Waite in that case might be paraphrased to fit the case under consideration exactly. It reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Foreman
...D.C., 112 F. 181; German Savings & Loan Soc. v. Dormitzer, 9 Cir., 116 F. 471; Miller v. Le Mars Nat. Bank, C.C., 116 F. 551; Abel v. Book, C.C., 120 F. 47; Huntington v. Pinney, C.C., 126 F. 237; Miller v. Clifford, 1 Cir., 133 F. 880, 5 L. R.A.,N.S., 49; Heffelfinger v. Choctaw, O. & G. R......
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Foreman
... ... R. Co., 112 F ... 180; German Savings & Loan Soc. v ... Dormitzer, 116 F. 471; Miller v. Le ... Mars Nat. Bank, 116 F. 551; Abel v ... Book, 120 F. 47; Huntington v ... Pinney, 126 F. 237; Miller v ... Clifford, 133 F. 880; Heffelfinger v ... Choctaw, O ... ...
-
Zeagler v. Hunt
...to make timely application, the other defendants are, in the absence of a separable controversy, subject to the same disability. Abel v. Book, C.C., 120 F. 47; Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U.S. 408, 6 S.Ct. 426, 29 L. Ed. 679; De Stefano v. Gregg, D.C., 24 F. Supp. The single question then to de......
-
Casey v. Baker
... ... Baker, which deed was recorded in the office of the clerk of ... Washington county on September 23, 1911, in Book 153 of ... Deeds, at page 417; that said deed recites the nominal ... consideration of $1 ... 'Sixth ... The defendant further admits ... al. (C.C.) 178 F. 308; Miller et al. v. Clifford et ... al. (C.C.A., First Circuit) 133 F. 880, 67 C.C.A. 52, 5 ... L.R.A. (N.S.) 49; Abel v. Book et al. (C.C.) 120 F ... 47. The syllabus in the McNaul Case, supra, reads: ... 'A ... cause is not removable by one of several ... ...