Cambria Iron Co v. Ashburn
| Decision Date | 19 April 1886 |
| Citation | 6 S.Ct. 929,30 L.Ed. 60,118 U.S. 54 |
| Parties | CAMBRIA IRON CO. v. ASHBURN, Trustee, etc. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Wm. M. Ramsey, Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., and Mortimer Matthews, for appellants, Cambria Iron Co. C. B. Matthews, for appellee, Thomas Q. Ashburn, Trustee, etc.
This is an appeal under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470, c. 137,) from an order of the circuit court remanding a cause which had been removed from a state court. The facts are these: On the fourteenth of September, 1883, Stephen Feike brought suit in the court of common pleas of Scioto county, Ohio, against the Cincinnati & Southeastern Railroad Company, to collect a debt due to him from the railroad company, and asking the appointment of a receiver. On the same day that the petition was filed the railroad company, then the only defendant, entered its appearance, and waived both process and notice of an application for the appointment of a receiver. At the same time W. R. McGill, another creditor of the company, came in, and by leave of the court made himself a party defendant, and filed an answer and cross-petition, in which he asked for himself the same relief that had been prayed by Feike. Immediately upon the filing of these pleadings a receiver was appointed with full power to take possession of and manage the railroad and other property of the company. On the twentieth of September, R. M. Shoemaker, T. Q. Ashburn, M. Jamison, P. F. Swing, and L. W. Bishop, trustees under various mortgages of the railroad company, came in voluntarily, and by leave of the court made themselves parties defendant. On the fifth of November, Shoemaker, one of the trustees, answered the petition. On the twenty-first of February, 1884, the Lomas Forge & Bridge Company was made a defendant, and filed a cross-petition, asking to be paid certain claims for supplies out of the earnings of the road. On the fifth of June, 1884, the Cambria Iron Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, filed an answer and cross-petition, by leave of the court, to recover the price of a quantity of steel rails which had been delivered to the railroad company a short time before the appointment of the receiver, and used in the construction of the railroad, or to have a return of the rails with a reasonable compensation for their use. A judgment for damages was also asked because of a refusal to accept other rails which had been contracted for and a delivery tendered. On the fifteenth of June, Post & Co. were admitted defendants, and they filed an answer and cross-petition asking payment of an amount due them for spikes, angle-bars, and bolts, and on the nineteenth of July D. M. Richardson filed an answer and cross-petition, in which he asked payment of an amount due him for the construction of part of the road. On the sixth of January, 1885, Shoemaker and Ashburn filed an answer and cross for a foreclosure of the mortgage executed to them as trustees, and on the fifth of February, Richardson demurred to the answer and cross-petition of the Cambria Iron Company. On the fifth of August the case was referred, on motion of Feike, Richardson, and Ashburn, and with the consent of all the other parties, to a master to take testimony and report upon the questions and issues raised by the pleadings. This report was filed December 10, 1885, and on the twenty-fourth of the same month the Cambria Iron Company presented a petition for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio, on the ground of prejudice and local influence. This petition set forth that the iron company was a citizen of Pennsylvania and all the other parties to the suit citizens of Ohio. The suit was entered in the circuit court, and on the eighth of February, 1886, Ashburn, one of the parties, moved that it be remanded (1) because it was not removable, and (2) because the petition was not filed in time. This motion was granted February 10th, and from an order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen
... ... 41, 22 L.Ed. 476; Myers v ... Swann, 107 U.S. 546, 2 Sup.Ct. 685, 27 L.Ed. 583; ... Iron Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U.S. 54, 6 Sup.Ct. 929, 30 ... L.Ed. 60; Hancock v. Holbrook, 119 U.S. 586, ... ...
-
American Indemnity Co. v. City of Austin
...S. 508, 513, 25 L. Ed. 631; Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 419, 420, 20 Sup. Ct. 155, 44 L. Ed. 219; Cambria Iron Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U. S. 54, 57, 6 Sup. Ct. 929, 30 L. Ed. 60; State v. Towery, 143 Ala. 48, 39 South. 309; Pratt Institute v. New York, 183 N. Y. 151, 75 N. E. 1119, 5 A......
-
The Secretary of Defense
...statutes to determine whether errors of omission, etc., had been made. United states v. Bowen, 100 U.S. 508; cambria iron company v. Ashburn, 118 U.S. 54; United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624. But more decisions make it clear that, in addition to considering the express language of a statu......
-
King v. McLean Asylum of the Massachusetts General Hospital, 95.
... ... 508, and applied in a very ... marked way to a change in the removal statutes, in Iron ... Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U.S. 54, 57, 6 Sup.Ct. 929, as ... 'The ... Revised Statutes ... ...