Carpenter v. Northern Pac. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1896 |
| Citation | 75 F. 850 |
| Parties | CARPENTER v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington |
Frank H. Graves, for plaintiff.
J. M Ashton and J. R. McBride, for defendants.
It is conceded that this action, being against the defendant Burleigh in his capacity as receiver of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, under an appointment made by this court and the corporation for which he is receiver, is one arising under the laws of the United States. But the plaintiff disputes the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that the amount involved is less than the amount required to give the court jurisdiction under the act of congress of March 3 1887, as corrected and amended by the act of August 13, 1888 (1 Supp.Rev.St.U.S. (2dEd.)611). If the action might be considered as an entirely distinct and independent case, and disconnected from any other cause within the jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiff would have to be sustained in his contention. But the case has grown out of the transactions of the receiver and his employes in the operation of the railroad, under authority of this court, and the receiver, in his official capacity as an officer of this court, is called upon to defend the property in his control and custody. The case must, therefore, be regarded as ancillary to the principal action now pending in this court, and in which the amount involved is many times greater than the amount specified in the statute as essential to jurisdiction. By a number of decisions of the supreme court of the United States it has become definitely settled that when a United States circuit court acquires complete jurisdiction of a suit against an insolvent corporation, and takes into its custody and control the assets and business of such a corporation, the jurisdiction of the court embraces not only the principal cause, but as well all the side issued and branches of the litigation involving rights of the corporation itself or its creditors or employes, and affecting the administration of the estate. All actions and proceedings which are ancillary to the principal cause, and which may be litigated in the same district, are cognizable in a circuit court, regardless of the citizenship of the parties, the nature of the controversy, or the amount involved. In the opinion of the supreme court by Mr. Justice Brown, in the case of McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U.S 327-332, 12 Sup.Ct. 13, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company
... ... Cox, ... supra; Landers v. Felton, 73 F. 311; Lund v ... Chicago, 78 F. 385; Carpenter v. Northern ... Pacific, 75 F. 850; Lanning v. Osborne, 79 F ... 657; McNulta v. Lochridge, ... ...
-
Pendleton v. Lutz
... ... which are conclusive ... There ... is a case (Carpenter v. Railroad Co. [C ... C.], 75 F. 850) which holds the contrary of this last ... proposition, ... ...
-
Gilmore v. Herrick
...costs. The point under consideration has been four times before circuit courts of the United States,-- before Judge Hanford in Carpenter v. Railroad Co., 75 F. 850, before Judge Baker in Ray v. Peirce, 81 F. before Judge Phillips in Sullivan v. Barnard, 81 F. 886, and before Judge Thompson ......
-
Pitkin v. Cowen
...case on all fours with the case at bar, and which in every point sustains the claim of the defendants. I refer to the case of Carpenter v. Railway Co., 75 F. 850. In case the court overruled the motion to remand, and in support of its action says: 'And in the case of White v. Ewing, 159 U.S......