Chicago Co v. Stude
| Decision Date | 18 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 209,209 |
| Citation | 74 S.Ct. 290,346 U.S. 574,98 L.Ed. 317 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. v. STUDE et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 347 U.S. 924, 74 S.Ct. 512.
Messrs. Alden B. Howland, B. A. Webster, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.
Messrs. Raymond A. Smith, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Harold W. Kauffman, Omaha, Neb., for respondents.
The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates its railroad through Pottawattamie County, Iowa. It was authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to improve its line of railway in that county and by the Iowa State Commerce Commission to acquire by condemnation any land necessary for the improvement.
On January 18, 1952, pursuant to the Iowa Code,1 the petitioner filed with the sheriff of the county its application to condemn certain lands in the county owned by respondent Stude. The sheriff appointed a commission of six resident freeholders to assess damages. Notice was given by the sheriff to the respondent owner and others interested in the land, and an award of damages in the sum of $23,888.60 was allowed to the owner and $1,000 to the tenant. The amount of the assessment was paid by the petitioner to the sheriff and the petitioner took possession of the land.2 Such appraisal became final unless appealed from.
On March 6, 1952, the petitioner filed with the sheriff of the county a notice of appeal from the commission's award. The Iowa Code provides for appeal as follows:
'472.18 Appeal. Any party interested may, within thirty days after the assessment is made, appeal therefrom to the district court, by giving the adverse party, his agent or attorney, and the sheriff, written notice that such appeal has been taken.
Code of Iowa 1950, I.C.A.
The petitioner then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the respondents in which it alleged diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional amount, authority to make improvements and to condemn therefor, together with a description of the land and that respondent Stude was the owner, and that the assessment proceedings had been instituted in the sheriff's office, resulting in the assessment of damages of $23,888.60, which was alleged to be excessive, and that appeal was taken by notice duly given. This notice was referred to as Exhibit A to the complaint, which exhibit recited that the appeal was taken to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, and a transcript of the sheriff's proceeding was filed in that court. The prayer was that the damages for the taking of the land be fixed at not more than $10,000. On this complaint, a summons was issued and served upon the respondents.
The petitioner also filed an appeal from this assessment in the state court, the District Court for Pottawattamie County. The case was docketed there with the landowner as the plaintiff and the petitioner-condemnor as defendant, as required by the Iowa Code. Thereafter, a petition to remove the cause to the federal court was filed by the petitioner. The respondents filed in the Federal District Court a motion to dismiss the complaint filed therein and a motion to remand the case removed from the state court.
The federal court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint but denied the motion to remand. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Kay, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 895. The petitioner appealed from the judgment dismissing its complaint. The respondents gave notice of appeal from the order of the District Court denying the motion to remand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing the complaint and reversed the District Court's denial of the motion to remand, and ordered the cause remanded to the state court. 204 F.2d 116; 204 F.2d 954. We granted certiorari, 346 U.S. 810, 74 S.Ct. 46.
The Order Denying the Motion to Remand. Obviously, such an order is not final and appealable if standing alone. Reed v. Lehman, 2 Cir., 91 F.2d 919; Miller v. Pyrites Co., 4 Cir., 71 F.2d 804. While these two cases were separate actions pending on the docket of the Federal District Court, they both involve the same subject and they were treated by the parties, the District Court and the Court of Appeals as if the dismissal appealed from and the order in the removal case were made in one case. Treating them as one case, the cross-error, challenging the order denying the motion to remand, may be considered as assigned in a case involving an appealable order, the order dismissing the complaint and the action. This is true despite the fact that the order denying the motion to remand standing alone would not be appealable. Deckert v. Independent Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 287, 61 S.Ct. 229, 232, 85 L.Ed. 189.
We come therefore to the merits of the motion to remand. The question on this motion is whether the petitioner was a defendant nonresident of Iowa and therefore authorized to remove to the Federal District Court as provided by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a).
The proceeding before the sheriff is administrative until the appeal has been taken to the district court of the county. Then the proceeding becomes a civil action pending before 'those exercising judicial functions' for the purpose of reviewing the question of damages. Myers v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 118 Iowa 312, 315—316, 91 N.W. 1076, 1078. When the proceeding has reached the stage of a perfected appeal and the jurisdiction of the state district court is invoked, it then becomes in its nature a civil action and subject to removal by the defendant to the United States District Court. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 407, 25 L.Ed. 206.3
Is the petitioner such a defendant? The petitioner contends it is because the Code of Iowa, § 472.21, I.C.A., provides that on appeal, the case shall be docketed in the district court with the landowner as the plaintiff and the condemnor as the defendant and thereafter tried as in an original proceeding. The Supreme Court of Iowa has construed this statute to mean that in such proceedings on appeal, the condemnor is the defendant. Myers v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., supra, 118 Iowa at page 324, 91 N.W. at page 1081. This Court was urged in Mason City and Fort Dodge Railroad Company v. Boynton, 204 U.S. 570, 27 S.Ct. 321, 51 L.Ed. 629, to follow that construction put upon this identical provision of the Iowa statute by the Supreme Court of Iowa. This Court declined to do so, saying:
'It is said that this court is bound by the construction given to the state law by the state court. Indeed, the above § 2009 does not need construction; it enacts, in terms, that the landowner shall be plaintiff. As the right to remove a suit is given only to the defendants therein, being nonresidents of the state, it is argued that the state decision ends the case.
'But this court must construe the act of Congress regarding removal. And it is obvious that the word 'defendant' as there used is directed toward more important matters than the burden of proof or the right to open and close. It is quite conceivable that a state enactment might reverse the names which, for the purposes of removal, this court might think the proper ones to be applied. In condemnation proceedings the words 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' can be used only in an uncommon and liberal sense. The plaintiff complains of nothing. The defendant denies no past or threatened wrong. Both parties are actors: one to acquire title, the other to get as large pay as he can. It is not necessary, in order to decide that the present removal was right, to say that the state decision was wrong. We leave the latter question where we find it. * * *
'* * * Therefore, in a broad sense, the railroad is the plaintiff, as the institution and continuance of the proceedings depend upon its will. * * *' 204 U.S. 570, at pages 579—580, 27 S.Ct. at page 323.
For the purpose of removal, the federal law determines who is plaintiff and who is defendant. It is a question of the construction of the federal statute on removal, and not the state statute. The latter's procedural provisions cannot control the privilege or removal granted by the federal statute. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 104, 61 S.Ct. 868, 870, 85 L.Ed. 1214. Here the railroad is the plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a), and cannot remove. The remand was proper.
The Motion to Dismiss. We think it was properly granted, and the original complaint in the Federal District Court correctly dismissed. The steps taken by the petitioner were those to perfect an appeal to the Federal District Court. The notice said it was the intention of the petitioner to docket the appeal in the federal court. The transcript on appeal was filed in the federal court, and the complaint filed sought a review of the commission's assessment of damages. The proceeding makes no sense on any other basis, for the action is brought not by the person injured, namely, the landowner, but by the railroad that inflicted the damage. It will be noticed further that there is no prayer for damages but only for a review of the assessment, in keeping with the Iowa Code, § 472.23, I.C.A., which provides 'no judgment shall be rendered except for costs * * *.' In short, it was an attempt of the petitioner to review the state proceedings on appeal to the Federal District Court.
The petitioner, after giving notice of appeal by filing notice with the sheriff, etc., could not perfect that appeal to any court but the court which the statute of Iowa directed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of New Jersey v. Moriarity
...question under the criteria provided in the pertinent removal statute, and irrespective of local law. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 74 S.Ct. 290, 98 L.Ed. 317 (1953); Crivello v. Board of Adjustment, supra, 183 F.Supp. at 827. The courts use a functional analysis to det......
-
Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers
...Dodge R.R. v. Boynton, 204 U.S. 570, 579-80, 27 S.Ct. 321, 323-24, 51 L.Ed. 629 (1907) and Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 580, 74 S.Ct. 290, 294, 98 L.Ed. 317 (1954), for the proposition that, regardless of the state's procedural provisions, where a party seeks to ......
-
Markham v. City of Newport News
...City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company v. Boynton, 1907, 204 U.S. 570, 27 S.Ct. 321, 51 L.Ed. 629; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stude, 1953, 346 U.S. 574, 74 S.Ct. 290, 98 L.Ed. 317; County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 1959, 360 U.S. 185, 79 S.Ct. 1060, 3 L.Ed.2d 1163. 1......
-
City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons
...no such construction, as it confers jurisdiction without reference to the nature of review. Nor do Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 581, 74 S.Ct. 290, 295, 98 L.Ed. 317, and Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354-355, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 1573-1574, 6 L.Ed.2d 890, requ......
-
ORTIZ V. UNITED STATES: THE SAVIOR OR DEATH SENTENCE OF THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM?
...Marbury, 5 U.S. at 137)). [173] Id. at 2192 (citing Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 458-460 (1942); Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 578-579 [174] Id. at 2193. [175] Id. compare James E. Pfander, Article I Tribunals, Article III Courts, and The Judicial Power of the United ......
-
FEDERAL COURTS AND TAKINGS LITIGATION.
...review of state administrative determinations in eminent domain cases should not be heard in the federal courts. 196 U.S. at 247. (94) 346 U.S. 574(1954). (95) Note, The Mystery of Rule 71A(k): The Elusive Right to Federal Diversity Jurisdiction over Condemnation Actions Authorized by State......
-
Should the Eighth Circuit recognize procedural misjoinder?
...(105.) Rutherford v. Merck & Co., Inc., 428 F. Supp. 2d 842, 852 (S.D. 111. 2006). (106.) See Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 580 (1954); Shamrock Oil, 313 U.S. at (107.) Rutherford, 428 F. Supp. 2d at 851. (108.) 313 U.S. 100 (1941). (109.) Id. at 104 (internal cit......
-
City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons: the Interplay Between Supplemental Jurisdiction and Cross-system Appeals, and the Impact on Federalism - Jacob Edward Daly
...477 (8th Cir. 1957) (affirming the district court's assumption of jurisdiction over an appeal from an order of a state commission). 52. 346 U.S. 574 (1954). 53. Id. at 575. 54. Id. at 576-77. 55. Id. at 577. 56. Id. at 581 (quoting Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 317 (1943)). 57. Id. ......