Blanken v. Braslow

• Decision Date: 14 September 1943
• Citation: 33 A.2d 742,130 N.J.L. 475
• Parties: BLANKEN et al. v. BRASLOW et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 N.J.L. 475

33 A.2d 742

BLANKEN et al.

v.BRASLOW et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey, Cape May County.

Sept. 14, 1943.

Action by Helen F. Blanken and husband against Nathan Braslow and another, trading as the Metropolitan Hotel, for personal injuries to plaintiff wife as the result of a fall on defendant's hotel premises and incidental expenses incurred by plaintiff husband. On defendants' petition for removal of the cause to a federal court.

Petition denied.

T. Millet Hand, of Cape May, for plaintiffs.

DeBrier & Shahadi and Harry Miller, all of Atlantic City, for defendants.

DONGES, Justice.

Defendant has filed a petition seeking the removal of the cause to the federal court. The plaintiffs are husband and wife and she sues to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained in a fall on hotel premises operated by the defendants in Cape May County, New Jersey. The husband sues per quod for his incidental expenses. Each plaintiff demands damages in the amount of $2,500. The plaintiffs are residents of the District of Columbia and the defendants are residents of the State of Pennsylvania.

A cause removable under the federal statute is presented provided the amount in controversy is in excess of the sum of $3,000. Defendants claim that because the aggregate of the damages claimed is $5,000, the amount is in excess of $3,000. Plaintiffs claim that there are two amounts in controversy, each of less than $3,000 and therefore the cause may not be removed.

The rule has been laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Troy Bank of Troy, Indiana, v. G. A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U.S. 39, 32 S.Ct. 9, 56 L.Ed. 81, as follows: ‘When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount; but when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest, it is enough if their interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount.’

[2] [3] Do plaintiffs here seek to enforce a ‘single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest’ or have they combined ‘separate and distinct demands'? In Kimpel v. Moon, 113 N.J.L. 220, 174 A. 209, 210, it was said: ‘A husband who sues for loss of consortium sues, not in his wife's right, but in his own; likewise wise as to money disbursements incurred by him. His wife never had the...