Cornelius Kanouse, Plaintiff In Error v. John Martin

• Decision Date: 01 December 1853
• Citation: 56 U.S. 198,14 L.Ed. 660,15 How. 198
• Parties: CORNELIUS KANOUSE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN M. MARTIN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

56 U.S. 198 15 How. 198 14 L.Ed. 660 CORNELIUS KANOUSE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN M. MARTIN. December Term, 1853

THIS case was brought up from the Superior Court of the city of New York, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

A motion was made at the last term of this court, by Mr. Martin, to dismiss the case, for want of jurisdiction, which is reported in 14 Howard, 23.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Garr, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Martin, for the defendant.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error first filed an elaborate brief, to which the counsel for the defendant replied. Then there was filed a reply to defendant's argument, and then a counter statement and points by the counsel for the defendant in error. From all these, the reporter collects the views of the respective counsel, as far as they concerned the points upon which the judgment of the court rested.

Mr. Garr, for the plaintiff in error.

The questions arising in this case are following:

1st. Whether the Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to proceed further in the cause, and to render a judgment

Page 199

therein, after the defendant had duly petitioned for the removal of it to the Circuit Court of the United States.

2d. Whether the Superior Court of the city of New York erred in refusing to look beyond the judgment-roll, and in excluding from its consideration the proceedings brought before it by the allegation of diminution and certiorari, that proved the existence of the errors complained of.

3d. Whether the Court of Appeals of the State of New York erred in holding that the defendant below was precluded from his writ of error, by it not appearing on the record that he had appealed from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, denying his application to remove the cause.

4th. As to the sufficiency of the matters set forth by the defendant in error in his plea to the special assignment of errors, and in the subsequent pleadings that terminated in a demurrer.

First. I. The defendant below had, at the time of entering his appearance in the Court of Common Pleas, a legal right to remove the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States, if the matter then in dispute exceeded the sum or value of $500. 12th sect. of Judiciary Act of 1789.

II. That the matter then in dispute exceeded the sum or value of $500, was manifest by uncontradicted evidence of the highest nature, viz. the declaration in the cause, the sum claimed in which (when the action is for damages) is the sole criterion by which to determine the amount in dispute. Martin v. Taylor, 1 Wash. C. C. Rep. 2; Muns v. Dupont, 2 Ib. 463; Sherman v. Clark, 3 McLean's Rep. 91; Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97; 1 Kent's Com. 6th ed. 302, note b; Opinion of Judges Nelson and Betts, in Martin v. Kanouse, U. S. Circuit Court, April 25, 1846, Appendix, p. 37.

III. By the filing of the petition, and the offer of the surety prescribed by the statute, (on the 18th of September, 1845,) the defendant's right to a removal of the cause was perfected and absolutely vested; and it thereupon instantly became 'the duty of the State court to accept the surety, and proceed no further in the cause.' 12th sect. of Judiciary Act.

IV. The Common Pleas erred in afterwards receiving (on the 1st of October) an affidavit of the plaintiff, reducing his demand below $500, and thereupon denying (on the 6th of October) the motion for removal, because,

1. It is only where property, and not damages, is the matter in dispute, that the court, for the purpose of determining the amount, looks at any evidence beyond the declaration. In such a case, the court will receive affidavits, in order to ascertain the value. Cooke v. Woodrow, 5 Cranch, 13.

2. Mr. Martin's affidavit, had it even been admissible, was

Page 200

insufficient. It did not deny any of the facts alleged in the petition, nor did it even allege that there had been a mistake in the declaration, and that he had not intended to demand by it a sum exceeding $500. On the contrary, the affidavit merely states that the demand made by the declaration was more than 'the actual amount due to him;' that such amount was less than $500, and that he 'now,' (that is, at the time of making the affidavit, being thirteen days after the filing of the petition, and after the defendant's right to a removal had become perfect,) limits and reduces his claim to the sum of $499.56.

3. The act of Congress does not provide that the State court may retain its jurisdiction, if the plaintiff will reduce his demand below $500.

4. The jurisdiction depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and is not affected by any subsequent event. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; Keppel v. Heinrich, 1 Barb. S. C. Rep. 449.

If Mr. Martin, the plaintiff, had, after the bringing of his action, removed from the State of New York, and become a citizen of the same State with the defendant, his change of residence would not have restored jurisdiction to the Court of Common Pleas. Clark v. Matthewson, 12 Pet. 164-171. Upon the same principle, his making an affidavit reducing below $500 the claim which he therein admitted he had made by his declaration, could not restore the jurisdiction.

5. By the defendant's application to remove the cause, the Court of Common Pleas lost jurisdiction over it; and as that jurisdiction could not be restored by any subsequent act of the plaintiff, or proceeding in that court, it follows that the plaintiff's affidavit reducing his demand, the amending of the declaration, and the subsequent proceedings in the cause, were coram non judice, and, as such, erroneous and void. Wright v. Wells, Pet. C. C. Rep. 220; United States v. Myers, 2 Brock. C. C. Rep. 516; Gorden v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97; Hill v. Henderson, 6 Smed. & Marsh. 351; Campbell v. Wallin's Lessee, 1 Mart. & Yerg. 266.

6. The errors complained of were not in matters of mere practice, or matters in regard to which the court below had an arbitrary discretion. They were in matters of substance; they consisted in the court's withholding a right to which the defendant was entitled under the act of Congress, and in their persisting to exercise jurisdiction, and to amend the declaration, and render a judgment, after it had 'become their duty to proceed no further in the cause.'

'Where the law has given to the parties rights, as growing out of a certain state of facts, there discretion ceases.' Gordon

Page 201

v. Longest, supra; People v. Superior Court of New York, 5 Wend. 125, and 10 ib. 291.

Mr. Martin, for defendant in error.

First Point. The State court had jurisdiction of the cause until the plaintiff in error fully complied with all the requirements of the United States statute, and until the State court had so decided, and made an order for its removal.

The New York Common Pleas is a common-law court, and had an original jurisdiction of this cause, of which it could not be deprived by a paramount statute. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75. This jurisdiction, and the right of the State court to decide on the application for a removal of the cause, is conceded in the act of Congress, by requiring the presentment of a petition for such removal.

But it is insisted, by the plaintiff in error, at pages 14, 15, and 16, of his...