Beck v. Johnson
Decision Date | 13 April 1909 |
Citation | 169 F. 154 |
Parties | BECK v. JOHNSON et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Heavrin & Woodward, for plaintiff.
J. E Williamson, H. P. Taylor, and H. J. Peckinpaugh, for defendants.
This civil action at law for the recovery of $20,000 damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate was brought in the state court, and, having been removed by the defendants to this court, a motion to remand it has been made by the plaintiff. The petition for removal, after showing (as indeed, the plaintiff's petition on its face had done) that the matter in dispute exceeds in value the sum of $2,000 exclusive of interest and costs, asserts that 'the action is one arising under the laws of the United States,' and is therefore within Removal Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 508, 509). Whether or not this is correct is the sole question to be solved in passing upon the motion to remand.
The plaintiff's petition, after showing that R. D. Beck died intestate, and that plaintiff was appointed and qualified as his administrator by the proper state court, avers in paragraph 1 that on January 4, 1909, the defendant P. H. Johnson was the owner, and that the defendant T. K. Bowles, under the owner's employment, was the master, captain, or pilot, of the steamboat Samuel, and that:
lights vertically in addition to their side lights, so as to distinguish them from other vessels, which masthead lights were required to be of such character as to be visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere at a distance of at least 5 miles, and so constructed as to show a uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 20 points of the compass.
'Plaintiff says that, at the time and place of the collision above referred to, the defendants, and each of them, acting jointly, negligently failed to, and did not, sound three blasts of the whistle in quick succession each minute immediately before or at the time of the collision, nor did the defendants, or either of them, sound any blast of the whistle; that the defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to, and did not, have any lights whatever on the barges she was towing, nor on any of said barges, and the same, nor any of them, were lights as required by law and the rules then and there in force, nor were the lights on said barges or boat, or any of them, visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere at two miles or any distance, nor were they so constructed as to show a uniform or unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of the compass, and the defendants and each of them negligently failed to and did not carry on the steamer Samuel, at the time and place of the collision, the white masthead lights required to be carried, and that the lights carried on the Samuel could not, on a dark night with a clear atmosphere, be visible at a distance of 5 miles, or any distance in excess of 200 yards; and the defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to, and did not, at the time and place of the collision and injuries aforesaid, go at a moderate speed, but negligently and carelessly operated said vessel at an excessive rate of speed, and under a full head of steam, and negligently and carelessly directed and controlled the course of same, and negligently and carelessly failed to and did not keep any lookout or use ordinary care to avoid the collision and injuries complained of; that the negligence hereinbefore complained of, and all of it, was the joint and concurrent negligence of the defendants, and each of them, by reason of which plaintiff's decedent was injured as hereinbefore set out, from which injuries the plaintiff's intestate did then and there die.'
In paragraph 2 of the petition the plaintiff avers that:
'The defendant T. K. Bowles, at the time and place of the injuries complained of, in the collision hereinbefore set out, was grossly incompetent to manage, navigate, pilot or command the steamboat Samuel, and was unskilled in the management and navigation of steam vessels, and his incompetency was well known to himself and to his codefendant Johnson at and for many months prior to the time of the collision referred to in the first paragraph and the injuries to plaintiff's intestate; and that by reason of the incompetency and lack of skill of the said T. K. Bowles, acting in conjunction with the negligence set out in the first paragraph, the steamer was, by the joint negligence of each of the defendants caused to push its barges and tows against and over the raft and the body of the plaintiff's intestate, inflicting the injuries which resulted in the death of said intestate, as is set out...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hiatt v. United States
...Bank of St. Louis is an association engaged in a banking business. Matter of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374, 29 S. Ct. 299, 53 L. Ed. 558; Beck v. Johnson (C. C.) 169 F. 154; Leonard v. Lennox, 181 F. 760, 104 C. C. A. In United States v. Williams, 28 Fed. Cas. 635, No. 16706, it was held that, in an ......
-
Moehl v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(1) now § 1331 and therefore fails to give this court jurisdiction. Defendant cites Beck v. Johnson, C.C.Ky. 1909, 169 F. 154, 162 to the effect that rules and regulations made by executive officers under the authority of Congress cannot be construed to b......
-
United States v. Cooper Corporation
...the United States which are the Acts of Congress. New Orleans, M. & T. Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135, 26 L. Ed. 96; Beck v. Johnson, C.C., 169 F. 154. Even in the Constitution itself, (Article III) this distinction is made: "Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Case......
-
R. W. Hart & Co. v. Harris
...and that the contract is void as against public policy. We take judicial notice of the Treasury Department regulations. Beck v. Johnson, C.C., 169 F. 154, 162, state courts * * * must take judicial notice of the laws of the United States, and for some purposes judicial notice will be taken ......