Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall
| Decision Date | 10 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 215. |
| Parties | COMMODORES POINT TERMINAL CO. et al. v. HUDNALL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Knight & Adair, Fleming & Fleming, and W. K. Jackson, all of Jacksonville, Fla., R. H. Liggett, of Washington, D.C., and A. W. Cockrell, Jr., Cooper, Cooper & Osborne, J. C Reynolds, and E. J. L'Engle, all of Jacksonville, Fla for complainants.
John W Dodge and Stockton & Ulmer, all of Jacksonville, Fla., for defendants.
This matter comes on for a hearing upon a petition of the complainants in the nature of a suggestion of the diminution of the record, and also the motion of Charles F. and Mary E Hudnall to vacate the injunctional orders heretofore issued by the state court. A statement of the pleadings is as follows:
On October 8, 1921, the complainants filed their bill of complaint, seeking to enjoin the defendants Charles F. and Mary E. Hudnall from proceeding with certain actions of ejectment instituted by them against certain of the complainants, and praying to remove the claims of these two defendants and many others as a cloud upon the title of complainants. The bill shows that the complainants and defendants deraign their title from a common source, although they claim separate interests in and to parcels of the land. These injunction orders were issued by the state court on October 31, 1921. On October 26, 1921, notice of the petition by Charles F. and Mary E. Hudnall for removal of the cause to this court, and on October 28th the petition, bond, and notice were filed in the clerk's office and on October 29th the matter was brought on for a hearing before the circuit judge for Duval county and denied by an order of that date. Subsequent to filing the bill, and before the 28th of October, certain interrogatories were filed to certain persons pursuant to the state practice. The commissioners to take the testimony on these interrogatories were appointed on October 28, 1921. On December 3, 1921, a second petition for removal was filed by Charles F. and Mary E. Hudnall, William D. McNamar, Ezilla Sparkman and Frank, her husband, George B. Prevatt, Dorothy Prevatt Harris, and Warren S. Harris, her husband; the other defendant, Elizabeth B. Wilson, not joining, but the petition showing that she has no interest. Upon this last petition an order of removal was granted December 3, 1921, and a record filed in this court December 31, 1921.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Casualty Ins Co v. Stevens
...are valid if the case was not in fact removable. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Waite, D.C., 279 F. 171; Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, D.C., 279 F. 606, 607; First National Bank v. Bridge Co., 9 Fed.Cas. 88, No. The rule that the remand order is not reviewable stems from § 28 of th......
-
Covington v. Indemnity Insurance Company
...effect upon the removal, if the case is in its nature removable. We agree with appellees that this is so. In Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, D.C., 279 F. 606, the court, saying "Under the law all papers filed and proceedings in this cause in the state court prior to" the removal o......
-
Marsh v. Tillie Lewis Foods, Inc.
...are valid if the case was not in fact removable. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Waite, D.C., 279 F. 171; Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, D.C., 279 F. 606, 607; First National Bank of Manhattan v. King Wrought Iron Bridge Co., 9 Fed.Cas. p. 88, No. and to this the court adds another, ......
-
Usatorres v. Marina Mercante Nicaraguenses, S.A., 84-5884
...... if any of them are lacking from the original removal record, they may be later supplied." Id. at 933 (quoting Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, 279 F. 606). Covington recently was followed in Woodall v. Insurance Co. of North America, 582 F.Supp. 247 (N.D.Ga.1984). See also Wrig......