Baker v. Duwamish Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1906
• Docket Number: 1,393.
• Citation: 149 F. 612
• Parties: BAKER v. DUWAMISH MILL CO. (CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA, Garnishee).
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

149 F. 612

BAKER v. DUWAMISH MILL CO. (CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA, Garnishee).

No. 1,393.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

November 15, 1906

Vince H. Faben, for plaintiff.

John P Hartman, for garnishee.

HANFORD District Judge.

The plaintiff having obtained a judgment for $6,000, and the same being unsatisfied, caused a writ of garnishment to be issued by the state court which rendered the judgment and served upon the Casualty Company of America, a corporation, whereby said corporation was commanded to be and appear before the court within 20 days after the service of the writ, then and there to answer upon oath in what amount, if any, it was indebted to the Duwamish Mill Company, and what effects, if any, of said Duwamish Mill Company it had in its possession or under its control; the purpose being to collect from the casualty company an amount of money supposed to be due to the mill company, in order to apply the same in satisfaction of the plaintiff's judgment against the mill company. This form of proceeding is authorized by the laws of the state. Laws Wash. 1893, p. 95, c. 56; Pierce's Code, p. 107; Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. Sec. 5390 et seq. The casualty company appeared in response to the writ of garnishment, and filed an answer denying any liability to the mill company on any account whatever, and at the same time filed a petition and bond for removal of the case into this court, on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the plaintiff has moved to remand the case, alleging that this court is without jurisdiction. In order to determine the questions arising upon the motion to remand, it is necessary for the court to ascertain from the record whether there is a controversy in a civil action wholly between citizens of different states, and with respect to these matters I find as follows:

Subsequent to the entering of the judgment, an affidavit conforming to the requirements of the state law was filed in the state court, alleging, in substance, that the casualty company was indebted to the mill company, and had in its possession and under its control effects belonging to the mill company, which allegations the casualty company was required by the provisions of the law to answer, and it had the right to deny liability. Therefore an issue was tendered; that is to say, the casualty company was challenged to controvert the ground upon which the writ of garnishment was founded, and by its answer it did bring into the case a controversy not involved in the pleadings, upon which the judgment was rendered. If the casualty company had admitted...