Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. Lissa Martin
Decision Date | 21 May 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 135,135 |
Citation | 20 S.Ct. 854,44 L.Ed. 1055,178 U.S. 245 |
Parties | CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and S. H. H. Clark et al. , Receivers of the Union Pacific Railway Company, Plffs. in Err. , v. LISSA MARTIN, Administratrix of the Estate of William Martin, Deceased |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action brought by Lissa Martin as administratrix of William Martin, deceased, against the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company, in the district court of Clay county, Kansas, to recover damages for the death of the decedent. Plaintiff's petition was filed January 26, 1894, and on February 14, 1894, the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad Company filed its separate answer thereto. February 20, 1894, defendants Clark and others, as receivers, presented their petition and bond, praying for the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court for the district of Kansas, on the ground that the case arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which application was overruled by the district court, and the receivers duly excepted. The cause was tried, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against all the defendants, and judgment was entered thereon. The cause was taken on error to the supreme court of Kansas by the defendants, and the judgment was by that court affirmed. 59 Kan. 437, 53 Pac. 461.
The refusal of the state court to remove the cause to the circuit court of the United States on the application of the receivers was relied on as error throughout the proceedings, and the supreme court of Kansas held, among other things, that the application for removal was properly denied because all the defendants were charged with jointly causing the death of plaintiff's intestate, and all did not join in the petition for removal.
Messrs. Winslow S. Pierce, A. L. Williams, W. R. Kelly, M. A. Low, N. H. Loomis, and W. F. Evans for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. A. A. Godard and F. B. Dawes for defendant in error.
Assuming that as to the receivers the case may be said to have arisen under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the question is whether it was necessary for the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad Company, defendant, to join in the application of its codefendants, the receivers of the Union Pacific Railway Company, to effect a removal to the circuit court.
The Rock Island Company was not a corporation of Kansas, and all the receivers of the Union Pacific Railroad Company were citizens of some other state than the state of Kansas. But the receivers applied for removal, after the Rock Island Company had answered, on the ground that the suit was, as to them, 'one arising under the laws of the United States,' in that they were appointed receivers by the circuit court of the United States for the districts of Nebraska and Kansas, to take charge of and to operate a corporation created by the consolidation, under acts of Congress, of a corporation of the United States, a corporation of Kansas, and a corporation of Colorado.
The act of March 3, 1887, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 433, chap. 866, § 2), provides:
It thus appears on the fact of the statute that if a suit arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or if it is a suit between citizens of different states, the defendant, if there be but one, may remove, or the defendants if there be more than one; but where the suit is between citizens of different states, and there is a separable controversy, then either one or more of the defendants may remove.
Under the 1st clause of § 2 of the act of 1875 (18 Stat. at L. 470, chap. 137), which applied to 'either party,' but in its re-enactment in the 2d clause of § 2 of the act of 1887 above quoted, is confined to the defendant or defendants, it was well settled that a removal could not be effected unless all the parties on the same side of the controversy united in the petition; and so as to the 2d clause of the 2d section of the act of 1875, which corresponds with the 3d clause of the 2d section of the act of 1887, it was held that that clause only applied where there were two or more controversies in the same suit, one of which was wholly between citizens of different states. Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U. S. 192, 38 L. ed. 685, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 835, and cases cited; Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 36 L. ed. 528, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 726, and cases cited. In the latter case Mr. Justice Gray said: 'As this court has repeatedly affirmed, not only in cases of joint contracts, but in actions for torts, which might...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Montana v. Abbot Laboratories
...of the Univ. Sys. of Go., 535 U.S. 613, 620, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002) (citing Chicago, Rock Island, & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900) for the proposition that "removal requires the consent of all defendants"); Wis. Dep't of Correct......
-
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
...558; Gableman v. Peoria, D. & E. Railway Co., 1900, 179 U.S. 335, 337, 21 S.Ct. 171, 45 L.Ed. 220; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Martin, 1900, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055; Sheets v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp., 5 Cir., 1940, 115 F.2d 880, 883, affirmed 1941, 313 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct......
-
Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-18-0459
...defendants. Under that rule, which is generally traced to the Supreme Court decision in Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Martin , 178 U.S. 245, 251, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to removal. Like current......
-
Miles v. Kilgore
...28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) to require all served defendants to join in the removal.2 See e.g., Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 247-248, 20 S.Ct. 854, 855, 44 L.Ed. 1055 (1900); Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen & Assistants Local 349, 427 F.2d 325, 327 (......
-
Significant Changes To The Federal Jurisdictional Statutes Effective January 6, 2012
...the "rule of unanimity" first established by the Supreme Court more than 110 years ago in Chi., Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245 (1900). That rule requires all defendants "properly joined and served" to join in or consent to removal. The new statutory provision, codifi......
-
Forum Selection: Venue, Forum Non Conveniens, & Removal
...Must Join Generally, all defendants must join in or consent to the notice of removal. [See Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Martin , 178 US 245 (1900); Speciale v. Seybold, 147 F3d 612 (7th Cir 1998).] The right of removal is deemed to be held by all defendants jointly—sometimes called th......
-
Forum Selection: Venue, Forum Non Conveniens, & Removal
...Must Join Generally, all defendants must join in or consent to the notice of removal. [See Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Martin , 178 US 245 (1900); Speciale v. Seybold, 147 F3d 612 (7th Cir 1998).] The right of removal is deemed to be held by all defendants jointly—sometimes called th......
-
Forum Selection: Venue and Removal
...Must Join Generally, all defendants must join in or consent to the notice of removal. [See Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Martin , 178 US 245 (1900); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig. , 488 F3d 112 (2d Cir 2007) (failure of all defendant corporations to consent to re......
-
Forum shopping for arbitration decisions: federal courts' use of antisuit injunctions against state courts.
...parties, see 28 U.S.C. [sections] 1441(b), or of parties who do not consent to removal, see Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245 (1900), will prevent the removal of an entire [Zeta]state action to federal court. In such a situation, a subset of the state court defenda......