City of Tacoma v. Wright

• Decision Date: 26 January 1898
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington
• Parties: CITY OF TACOMA v. WRIGHT et al.

84 F. 836

CITY OF TACOMA v. WRIGHT et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Western Division.

January 26, 1898

Ben Sheeks, for complainant.

Charles S. Fogg and Silas W. Pettit, for defendants.

HANFORD District Judge.

This is a suit in equity, commenced in the superior court of the state of Washington, for Pierce county, by the city of Tacoma, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington against C. B. Wright, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania and several others, who are citizens of the state of Washington. The defendant Wright filed in the superior court his petition and bond for removal of the cause into this court, and in his petition for removal alleged, as his ground for removal, 'that, from prejudice and local influence he will not be able to obtain justice in your honorable court, or in any other court of the state of Washington, to which he may, under the laws of the state of Washington, have the right, on account of such prejudice or local influence to remove said cause. ' An order was entered accepting the petition and bond, and directing the cause to be certified to this court. Said defendant has also petitioned this court to take jurisdiction, and has filed several affidavits tending to prove that in the city of Tacoma, during several years preceding the commencement of this suit, there has been public denunciation of the defendant Wright and his associates, on account of the transactions out of which this lawsuit has arisen, and that there has been, and is, in the minds of a great number of citizens of Tacoma, a strong belief, that the people of Tacoma have been defrauded in said transactions, and a disposition to hold the defendant Wright responsible therefor. The plaintiff has filed in this court a motion to remand the cause, supported by affidavits controverting the affidavits on the part of said defendant.

The amount at stake in the litigation is so large in proportion to the amount of taxes annually collected in Tacoma that it is argued every taxpayer of the city and county has a direct pecuniary interest sufficient in amount to create a presumption of bias. I am satisfied from the showing made that there is in Pierce county considerable prejudice against the defendant Wright, and local influences which may operate against him in the trial and determination of this case. If it were only necessary for a nonresident defendant to prove the existence of prejudice and local influence in order to make the complete showing necessary to the right of removal, the defendant's right in this case would be clear; but the statute seems to require the circuit court to make a finding that, because of prejudice or local influence, the defendant will not be able to obtain justice either in the court in which the action is brought, or in any other court of the state to which he will have the right, on account of such prejudice, or local influence, to have the cause transferred. If by this statute it is meant that the circuit court must demand an equity case, which has been removed on account of prejudice or local influence, unless satisfied from the evidence presented that the judge of the court in which the case was commenced, and all the other judges of the state courts who might be called to hear and decide the case, are so far affected by prejudice and local influence as to be incapable of rendering a fair decision, this case would necessarily have to be remanded; and there would be few cases in which a United States circuit court would feel warranted in making the finding necessary to support its jurisdiction. But the statute, as it has been construed by the higher courts, does not impose so heavy a strain upon the circuit courts.

In the case of City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 54 F. 1-21, Judge Taft interpreted the statute as follows:

'The 'justice' which the defendant must be prevented from obtaining in the state court to entitle him to a removal is certainly not a judgment or decree in his favor. The phrase does not refer to any particular result in the case, but rather to the influences which will operate upon the tribunal in deciding it. The justice which the defendant has the right to obtain is a hearing and decision by a court wholly free from, and not exposed to the effect of prejudice and local influence. If it is made to appear to the United States court that prejudice and local influence do exist, which would have a natural tendency to operate directly upon the state court, and furnish an interested motive for the judges to decide the case against the

...