Corbin v. Van Brunt
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 576,26 L.Ed. 1176 |
| Parties | CORBIN v. VAN BRUNT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Randall Hanger for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. J. J. McElhone and Mr. Joseph K. McKammon for the defendants in error.
This was a suit begun in a State court of New York by the Van Brunts, defendants in error, citizens of New York, against Corbin, Dow, and Burnap, also citizens of New York, the New York and Manhattan Beach Railway Company, a New York corporation, Keefer, a citizen of Ohio, and McKinnie, a citizen of Indiana, to recover the possession of certain lands, and damages for the detention thereof. The complaint alleges title in the Van Brunts, and an unlawful withholding of possession by all the defendants, who are now plaintiffs in error. Each of the defendants answered separately. The answer of Dow is a general denial of all the allegations of the complaint. The other defendants deny the title of the Van Brunts, and allege that the railwa company is in possession. The railway company, Keefer, McKinnie, and Burnap set up title and seisin in fee in the company, and deny explicitly that either Keefer, McKinnie, or Burnap is in possession. After the answers were all in, the defendants united in a petition for the removal of the suit to the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district, on the ground 'that there is a controversy herein which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them.'
The suit having been docketed in the Circuit Court, the Van Brunts moved to remand. The motion was granted, and from the order to that effect this writ of error was brought.
The real controversy is about the right to the possession of the land in dispute. So far as the title is concerned, it is apparent from the pleadings that citizens of New York are the only parties interested. They occupy both sides of that part of the controversy. The citizen of Ohio and the citizen of Indiana claim for themselves neither title nor possession. It is true that, as the case stands, if the Van Brunts establish their title against the other defendants, and it appears that Keefer and McKinnie were actually in possession and wrongfully kept the rightful owners out, there may be a recovery against them jointly with the railway...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York Chase Nat Bank of City of New York v. Citizens Gas Co of Indianapolis Same v. Indianapolis Gas Co 8212 13
...Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 468, 470, 25 L.Ed. 593; Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289, 298, 299, 25 L.Ed. 932; Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U.S. 576, 26 L.Ed. 1176; Evers v. Watson, 156 U.S. 527, 532, 15 S.Ct. 430, 432, 39 L.Ed. 520; Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U.S. 579, 25 S.Ct. 355, 49 L......
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co. v. American Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J.
... ... Wiswall, 112 U.S. 187, 5 S.Ct. 90, 28 L.Ed. 693; ... Geer v. Mathieson, 190 U.S. 428, 23 S.Ct. 807, 47 ... L.Ed. 1122; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U.S. 571, 10 S.Ct ... 196, 33 L.Ed. 462; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U.S. 539, 25 ... L.Ed. 355; Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U.S. 576, 26 ... L.Ed. 1176; ... ...
-
Tolbert v. Jackson, 8877.
...in the following cases, many of which were for death or personal injuries: Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, 26 L.Ed. 823; Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U.S. 576, 26 L.Ed. 1176; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U.S. 191, 1 S.Ct. 171, 27 L.Ed. 131; Winchester v. Loud, 108 U.S. 130, 2 S.Ct. 311, 27 L.Ed. 677; ......
-
Regis v. United Drug Co.
...in the following cases: Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 527, 12 Sup.Ct. 726, 36 L.Ed. 528 (bill in equity for partition); Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U.S. 576, 26 L.Ed. 1176 (action of ejectment); Bellaire v. B. & O.R.R., U.S. 117, 13 Sup.Ct. 16, 36 L.Ed. 910 (condemnation proceedings); Laidly v. ......