Broadway National Bank v. Adams

• Decision Date: 23 February 1881
• Citation: 130 Mass. 431
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Broadway National Bank v. Charles W. Adams & another

130 Mass. 431

Broadway National Bank v. Charles W. Adams & another

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

February 23, 1881

Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed June 18, 1880, by a corporation having its usual place of business in Boston in this Commonwealth against Charles W. Adams of Galveston in the State of Texas and Thomas W. Peirce of Topsfield in this Commonwealth alleging that Adams was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $ 10,000, on certain promissory notes signed by him; that Peirce, as trustee under the will of Seth Adams, held the sum of $ 75,000, in trust to invest the same in such manner as to him might seem prudent, and to pay the net income thereof semiannually to the defendant Adams during his natural life "such payments to be made to him personally when convenient, otherwise upon his order or receipt in writing, in either case free from the interference or control of his creditors; my intention being that the use of said income shall not be anticipated by assignment;" and at his death to pay the net income to his present wife for the benefit of herself and of his children, and the principal at her death or second marriage to the children and their representatives; that, except his interest in the trust fund, Adams had no means wherewith to pay his indebtedness to the plaintiff, and had no property subject to attachment; so that the plaintiff was wholly unable to enforce payment of said indebtedness from him.

The prayer of the bill was for a writ of subpoena; and that the plaintiff be allowed to reach and apply, in payment of his debt, the right, title and interest of Adams in the trust fund; that this interest might be sold by public or private sale, and the proceeds applied in payment of his debt in such manner as the court might direct; or that Peirce be ordered to hold the trust fund in trust to pay the net income thereof semiannually to the plaintiff, until his debt, with interest and costs, be paid, or until the death of Adams; and for further relief.

On October 13, 1880, the defendant Adams filed a petition for the removal of the case into the Circuit Court of the United States, alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of this Commonwealth, and that he was a citizen of Texas; that the defendant Peirce was a citizen of this Commonwealth, and was made a party in order that the income of a certain trust fund, held by him as trustee under the will of Seth Adams, might be reached and applied to the payment of a debt claimed to be due from Adams to the plaintiff; that the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeded the sum of $ 500; that in the suit there was a controversy wholly between citizens of different States, the plaintiff and the defendant Adams, namely, whether said defendant was liable to the plaintiff, and the extent of his liability, and also another controversy, namely, whether the income of the trust property could be applied in payment of the plaintiff's claim, to neither of which controversies was Peirce a party, and in which he was not interested. A bond, in the form prescribed by law, was filed with the petition. On December 13, 1880, both defendants filed a joint petition, similar in form to the preceding, except that it omitted the allegations relating to the controversies between the plaintiff and Adams. With this petition was also filed a bond in the form prescribed by law.

To these petitions the plaintiff filed answers, admitting the citizenship of the parties, and that the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeded the sum of $ 500; denying the other allegations, except so far as they were consistent with the facts alleged in the bill; and alleging that the cause could not by law be removed.

Hearing before Endicott, J., who ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to remove the case; and reported the case for the consideration of the full court, according to whose opinion the petitions were to be allowed or dismissed.

Petitions for removal denied.

R. D. Smith & W. W. Vaughan, for the defendant Adams, cited Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10, 18; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 407; Meyer v. Construction Co. 100 U.S. 457; Taylor v. Rockefeller, 6 W. N. C. (Penn.) 283; Burnham v. Chicago, Dubuque & Minnesota Railroad, 4 Dillon 503; Lockhart v. Horn, 1 Woods 628, 634; Clarkson v. Manson, 4 F. 257.

J. R. Churchill, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.

Gray, C. J. Morton & Field, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray

The question whether the petitions for removal present a case in which this court is obliged by the Constitution and laws of the United States to surrender its jurisdiction and proceed no further in the cause, is one which must be determined by this court in the first instance, though subject to revision by the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error. Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 503, and cases cited.

The only provision of the Constitution of the United States under which the jurisdiction of the Federal courts can be invoked in this case, is that which ordains that the judicial power of the United States "shall extend to controversies between citizens of different States." U.S. Const. art 3, § 1. And one of the earliest amendments of that Constitution declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const. Amendm. art. 10. Under the Constitution, therefore, it would seem that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, so far as it depends upon the citizenship of the parties, may extend to any controversy...