Batchelder v. S.C. Quimby Land Co.

Decision Date27 July 1920
Docket Number120.
Citation267 F. 483
PartiesBATCHELDER v. S. C. QUIMBY LAND CO. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Tobin Tobin & Tobin, of Vinton, Iowa, and Johnson, Donnelly & Swab of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for plaintiff.

W. F Zumbrunn and E. E. Bowers, both of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.

REED District Judge.

This action was commenced in the district court of Iowa, in and for Linn county, on October 3, 1919, by the plaintiff causing to be served an original notice or summons upon the defendants, as authorized by the statutes of Iowa. The plaintiff alleges in his petition that when he commenced the action, and for many years prior thereto, he had been a resident of Springville, in said Linn county, Iowa, and that he was induced to purchase from the defendant S. C. Quimby Land Company, a corporation engaged in selling and trading land, with its headquarters in Linn county, Iowa, in charge of the defendant Clayton Dumont, some 208 acres of land in the state of Texas, for which he paid to defendants the sum of $60,000, and because of fraudulent representations of the defendants he was damaged in the sum of $40,000, for which he asks judgment against the defendants. The notice of such suit or summons was served upon the defendants in said Linn county, Iowa, where the petition alleges that the S. C Quimby Land Company was doing business and maintained an office, in charge of the defendant Clayton Dumont as its agent, and that he was also interested financially in said transaction.

The petition is duly verified by the plaintiff, Batchelder, and the notice or summons so served upon the defendants reads as follows:

'You and each of you are hereby notified that there will be on file in the office of the clerk of the district court aforesaid, on or before the 23d day of October, 1919, the petition of the plaintiff, claiming of you and each of you the sum of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00), on account of fraud and misrepresentations in the sale to him of two hundred eight (208) acres of land in Hidalgo county, Texas. * * * Now, unless you appear thereto and defend before noon of the second day of the next regular November, 1919, term of the district court aforesaid, which will begin on the 3d day of November, 1919, and be held in the courthouse at Marion, Linn county, Iowa, default will be entered against you and judgment rendered and entered as prayed. (Signed by attorneys for plaintiff.)'

Upon which notice the sheriff's return of service is indorsed as follows:

'The attached notice came into my hands for service on the 3d day of October, 1919, and I hereby certify that on the same date I personally served the same on the within-named Clayton Dumont by reading the same to him and personally delivered to him a true copy thereof. All done in Rapids township, Linn county, Iowa.
'John Taylor, Sheriff of Linn County, Iowa, 'By E. G. Thompson, Deputy Sheriff.'

Afterwards the defendants filed in said state court a petition for the removal of said cause to this court, as follows:

'In the District Court of Linn County, Iowa.
'C. E. Batchelder, Plaintiff, v. Quimby Investment Company and Clayton Dumont.
'Petition to Remove This Cause to the United States District Court.
'Come now the defendants, Quimby Investment Company and Clayton Dumont, your petitioners, and respectfully show that they are the defendants in the above-entitled cause, and that the matter in dispute in said cause exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum, amount, or value of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
'Your petitioners show that this is a suit of a civil nature being an action brought by the plaintiff against your petitioners in which the plaintiff in said cause charges that he, the said plaintiff, had theretofore purchased of defendant S. C. Quimby Land Company, certain land in Hidalgo county, Texas, which land was purchased by reason of the false and fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the sale thereof, and that by virtue of said misrepresentations the plaintiff sustained damages of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00), being the difference between the value of the land purchased and its actual value, and it is for forty thousand ($40,000.00) dollars damage this suit is prosecuted.
'Your petitioners therefore pray this honorable court to proceed no further herein, except to make an order of removal as required by law, and to accept said surety and bond, and to cause the record herein to be removed into said District Court of the United States within and for the Cedar Rapids Division of the Northern District of the state of Iowa, according to the statute in such cases made and provided.
'Your petitioner Quimby Investment Company shows that it was sued herein as the S. C. Quimby Land Company, that the correct name of this defendant is the Quimby Investment Company, and that the name of S. C. Quimby Land Company is used as a trade-name, and that in truth and fact the correct corporate name of the said defendant is the Quimby Investment Company, in that the Quimby Investment Company does business in and through its trade-name of S. C. Quimby Land Company.
'Your petitioners show that this is a suit involving a controversy wholly between citizens of different states, to wit, in this: That the plaintiff was at the time and commencement of this suit, and ever since has been, and still is, a resident and citizen of and residing within the Cedar Rapids Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and that the defendant Quimby Investment Company is a corporation duly chartered, licensed, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Kansas, and is and was at the date of the institution of this suit a citizen and resident of and residing within the state of Kansas, and that your petitioner Clayton Dumont is and was at the date of the institution of this suit a resident and citizen of and residing within the state of Texas.
'And your petitioners offer herein a bond, with good and sufficient surety, in the penal sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00), conditioned for their entry in the District Court of the United States for the Cedar Rapids Division of the Northern District of Iowa, within thirty days from the date of the filing of this petition and the said bond for removal, a copy of the record in this suit, and for the payment of all costs which may be awarded by said District Court f the United States, if said District Court of the United States should hold that this cause was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto. And your petitioners respectfully pray.
'(Signed) W. F. Zumbrunn and E. E. Bowers,
'Attorneys for Petitioners.'

Attached to which petition is an affidavit as follows: 'State of Missouri, County of Jackson-- ss.:

'W. F. Zumbrunn, of lawful age, being duly sworn, on his oath says that he is the agent of the defendants herein, that he has read the foregoing petition for removal, and well knows the contents thereof, and that the statements and allegations therein made and contained are true.

'(Signed) W. F. Zumbrunn.'

(Subscribed and sworn to by the said Zumbrunn before a notary public on October 27, 1919.)

When said petition for removal was filed in the district court of Iowa does not appear. Among the files of this court is the following notice:

'In the District Court of Linn County, Iowa.
'C. E. Batchelder, Plaintiff, v. Quimby Investment Company and Clayton Dumont, Defendants.
'Notice.
'To the Above-Named Plaintiff, or His Attorneys of Record, Johnson, Donnelly & Swab:
'You are hereby notified that on or before the 3d day of November, 1919, on behalf of the defendants, a petition praying for the removal of this cause from the state to the defendants, a petition praying for the removal of this cause proper bond, copies of which are attached hereto, will be filed in the above-entitled cause. And on the 3d day of November, 1919, said petition will be called up for hearing and disposition, at which time and place you may be present, if you so elect.

(Signed) W. F. Zumbrunn, 'Attorney for Defendants.'

Attached to the foregoing is a certificate as follows:

'State of Iowa, County of Linn-- ss.:

'John Taylor, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, upon oath says that he did on the 22d day of October, 1919, serve a copy of the foregoing notice upon C. E. Batchelder, the plaintiff herein.
'(Signed) John Taylor, Sheriff.'

Said certificate is subscribed and sworn to before a notary public on October 22, 1919. On February 21, 1920, the plaintiff, C. E. Batchelder, filed a motion to remand said cause to the district court of Iowa in and for Linn county, from which it was removed, as follows:

'C. E. Batchelder, Plaintiff, v. S. C. Quimby Land Company, Clayton Dumont, Defendants.
'Motion to Remand Case to District Court of Linn County, Iowa.
'Comes now the plaintiff, and moves the court to remand the above-entitled cause to the district court in and for the county of Linn and state of Iowa, on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and is without jurisdiction of either the parties to or the subject-matter of this suit for the reasons follows:
'That at the time of beginning this suit in the district court of Linn county, Iowa, for a long time prior and for a long time subsequent thereto, both the plaintiff and the defendant Clayton Dumont were residents of said Linn county, Iowa.
'That in support of the foregoing motion the plaintiff hereby refers to the affidavits hereto attached and made a part hereof, marked Exhibits A, B, C, etc.

(Signed) Johnson, Donnelly & Swab, 'Attorneys for Plaintiff.'

Among the files is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ransom v. Sipple Truck Lines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • November 30, 1943
    ...171 Iowa 255, 153 N.W. 1053; Waverly Stone & Gravel Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., D.C. N.D. Iowa, 239 F. 561; Batchelder v. Quimby Land Co., D.C.N.D.Iowa, 267 F. 483. The Supreme Court of the United States has emphatically affirmed the rule. Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. Co. v. Daughtry......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT