Doggett v. Hunt
Decision Date | 03 October 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 926.,926. |
Citation | 93 F. Supp. 426 |
Parties | DOGGETT et al. v. HUNT. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Scott & Porter, Chatom, Ala., Holberg, Tully & Aldridge, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiffs.
Pillans, Reams, Tappan, Wood & Roberts, Mobile, Ala., for defendant.
This cause is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to remand and oral motion to strike affidavit relative to the amount in controversy, which affidavit was not filed by defendant until some two months after the removal petition was filed. Also before the court is defendant's oral motion for leave to file an explanatory statement concerning the nature of the matter in controversy, on which the requisite jurisdictional amount depends.
As Judge Sanborn said in Enger v. Northern Finance Corporation, D.C., 31 F. 2d 136, 138 ( ): "An investigation of the authorities on the questions presented has required more time than it would probably take to try several of such cases upon the merits; but the parties are entitled to a determination of the questions involved."
Upon examination of the sections on removal of causes in such standard texts as Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure (2nd Ed.), Hughes' Federal Practice, and Corpus Juris, together with the authorities cited therein and the numerous decisions referred to by plaintiffs and defendant, one principle stands out clearly: the right of removal is determined, basically, from the allegations on the face of the record as a whole at the time the petition for removal is filed, for it is the state of facts appearing of record at that time which determines whether or not, under the applicable statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332, 1441(a), 1446, 1447, the federal court can take jurisdiction from the state court.
Of course, if on motion to remand, any of the allegations on which the right of removal was based, are specifically challenged, and the party seeking removal and invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court is unable to prove that at the time removal was sought the necessary jurisdictional facts appeared in the record, there was, in point of fact and in reality, no jurisdiction in the federal court ab initio, and the cause must be remanded. This court agrees with plaintiffs' contention, which is well supported by the authorities, that the burden is upon the party invoking the power of the court to show that he is properly in court.
In the light of these fundamentals the court examines here the record at the time petition for removal was filed:
On April 3, 1950, complainants (Doggett, Allen and Allen) filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of Choctaw County, Alabama, alleging, among other things, that complainants were resident citizens of Choctaw County, Alabama, and respondent a resident of Shreveport, Louisiana; that complainants were the joint and several owners of an undivided one-half interest in and to the oil, gas, and other mineral rights on and under S½ of SE¼, Section 31, Township 11, Range 4 West, Choctaw County, Alabama, which said oil, gas and other minerals, together with the outstanding one-half interest therein, were covered by one or more commercial oil, gas, and mineral leases now owned by respondent, Hunt; that there were two producing offset wells on the north and two producing offset wells on the northwest of the lands described; and that respondent had not developed the lands described, though it was the custom in the oil production business to promptly develop an area immediately adjoining offset wells, that such an obligation was written into every oil and gas lease by implication, and that respondent had neither complied with the custom of the trade nor the implied obligation of law in the premises.
The prayer of complainants with interrogatories is as follows:
The matter in controversy on which the jurisdictional amount depends is determined from the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint at the time petition for removal is filed. Defendant cannot allege any new matter in controversy as grounds for removal. Gates v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., D.C., 56 F.Supp. 149, citing St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845.
Therefore, this court is of the opinion it may fairly be said that, on the face of plaintiffs' complaint, the matter in controversy is whether or not the defendant shall be required to drill two offset wells or relinquish the lease for failure to drill.
On April 21, 1950, respondent Hunt filed his petition for removal, within the time required by law. The first two paragraphs of that petition read as follows:
On its face, therefore, the petition for removal alleges the requisite diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy.
Required notice was given to complainants and copy of petition filed with the Register of the State court.
Defendant thereupon filed ten days later, on May 2, motion to dismiss, going primarily to the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint as to the necessity of drilling offset wells. This motion is not before the court at the present time, is not a part of the record at the time of removal, and may be disregarded here.
On May 25, plaintiffs filed motion to remand, "and for answer to the defendant's petition for the removal of this cause from the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, to this Court, respectfully says as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.
...of an application to remand is common and recognized, and the parties may be required to file affidavits."), quoted by Doggett v. Hunt, 93 F.Supp. 426, 430 (S.D.Ala.1950); see also Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n. 4, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1011 n. 4, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947) ("[W]hen a question of ......
-
Poindexter v. Gross & Janes Company
...the defendant corporation was in Camden, Arkansas, and that allegation was not denied in the petition for removal. In Doggett v. Hunt, D.C.D.D.Ala.1950, 93 F.Supp. 426, the court said at page "Upon examination of the sections on removal of causes in such standard texts as Cyclopedia of Fede......
-
Marshall Const. Co. v. M. Berger Co.
...the right of removal, the Court is not confined to the petition for removal, but should consider the record as a whole. Doggett v. Hunt, 93 F.Supp. 426 (D.C.Ala. 1950); Roper Corporation Newark Division v. Farrow, 300 F.Supp. 103; and Crosby v. Paul Hardeman, Inc., 414 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. Afte......
-
Wilson v. New York Terminal Warehouse Co., Inc.
...of action is involved. P. P. Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Ins. Co., 395 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1968); Doggett v. Hunt, 93 F.Supp. 426 (M.D.Ala.1950), appeal dismissed 199 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. This reasoning is applicable with even greater force to Count 8 wherein Merrill Lynch......