Bronson v. St. Croix Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1888
• Parties: BRONSON et al. v. ST. CROIX LUMBER CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

35 F. 634

BRONSON et al. v. ST. CROIX LUMBER CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

June 27, 1888

Marsh &amp Searles, for plaintiffs.

Warner & Lawrence, for defendant.

BREWER J.

This is a motion to remand. The facts are as follows: Plaintiffs citizens of the state of Minnesota, claiming to be the owners of some logs, commenced this action of replevin against the St. Croix Lumber Company, also a citizen of the state of Minnesota, the party in whose possession the logs were. Service was made and issue joined. Thereafter, by leave of court, a defendant by the name of Wing intervened. He had sold the logs to the St. Croix Lumber Company, and was notified by that company to defend the suit. In pursuance of this notice, and by leave of court, he intervened, setting up his original title, and that he was a citizen of the state of Wisconsin. Upon his petition, after the filing of a bond, the case was transferred to this court; and now plaintiffs move to remand it, on the ground that there is no separable controversy.

The gist of the action of replevin is the possession of the property, and the action lies against the party in possession. In this case, the party claiming to be the owner and the party in possession were both citizens of the state of Minnesota; and as between them, of course, it is a local action, and not removable. Wing, the intervenor, claims nothing independent of the original plaintiff and defendant asserts no rights antagonistic to those of the defendant. He simply says he was the vendor of the logs to the original defendant, and is here to protect him in his possession. Whatever doubts may have existed in times past, it is now settled that such a case as this presents no separable controversy. In the case of Wilson v. Railway Co., which was decided in the circuit court for the Eastern district of Missouri, and reported in 22 F. 3, the court said:

'If a non-resident party has an interest in a controversy which is separate and distinct, and does not necessarily involve the interest of the other defendants in the issue, or the other party on the same side, he can remove the whole case into the federal courts. On the other hand, if the interests of the other parties are so identified, and so mixed up, that they must and should be considered together, and depend on the final decree, which must depend upon and involve the rights of both parties, then it cannot be removed where

...