Eaton v. Walker
Decision Date | 26 February 1923 |
Citation | 244 Mass. 23 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | FRED H. EATON & another v. ARTHUR T. WALKER. |
November 13, 1922.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., DE COURCY CROSBY, CARROLL, & JENNEY, JJ.
Jurisdiction. Practice, Civil, Amendment, Parties, Removal to federal court.
Superior Court. Executor and Administrator. Upon a petition, by the defendant in an action brought in the Superior
Court, to remove the action to the District Court of the United States under Sections 28, 29 of the Judicial Code, the question, whether a cause for removal is made out on the face of the record as a matter of law, must be considered and adjudicated by the courts of the
Commonwealth subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In an action which was brought in the Superior Court by a writ directing attachment of goods or estate described as formerly of a named testator and then "in the possession" of the executor of his will, and summoning the executor to answer to the action, and in which the declaration set forth a claim for professional services as an attorney at law rendered to the executor with relation to the administration of the estate, the court has jurisdiction and power under G.L.c 231, Section 51, to allow an amendment of the writ striking out all reference to the estate of the testator and to the fact that the defendant was an executor and leaving it solely against the person who was the executor as the defendant in his individual capacity.
A party to a cause of action in his capacity as executor or administrator is a different person in law from the same individual when party to a cause of action in his individual capacity.
The person made defendant in his individual capacity by the amendment above described did not become defendant by succession to or by substitution for him self in his capacity as executor, and the bringing of him in as an individual party by substitution for himself in the capacity of executor, while necessary to the maintenance of the cause of action set out in the declaration, was not ancillary nor incidental to the prosecution of the original cause of action; but it was in essence an independent proceeding although permitted by our practice in the form of an amendment.
Words, expressions and reasoning used in judicial opinions with reference to the single question actually before the court cannot be wrested from their context and applied authoritatively to the determination of other questions.
If an executor of a will, who, as the defendant in an action at law begun in the Superior Court, has ground for removing the action to the
District Court of the United States under Sections 23, 24 of the Judicial Code fails to avail himself of that right within the time prescribed in those provisions, this does not prevent him later as an individual from maintaining successfully a petition for such removal immediately after the allowance of an amendment of the writ which eliminates him as a party in his capacity as an executor and substitutes him as a party in his individual capacity and after he has filed pleadings showing that the proceeding was in invitum as to him individually.
CONTRACT for the value of professional services as attorneys at law alleged to have been rendered to the defendant by the plaintiffs copartners under the name and style, Eaton and Chandler. Writ dated July 22, 1921.
The original writ and declaration and the plaintiffs' motion to amend the writ are described in the opinion. The motion was heard by Irwin, J., and was allowed. Notice thereof was given by the clerk of courts to the statutory agent of the executor of the will of Edward F. Searles and to his attorneys of record in the Superior Court. Thereupon, on February 6 and 7, 1922, special appearances were filed on behalf of the defendant, Arthur T. Walker, as an individual, "for the following purposes and none other, -- (1) of objecting to the jurisdiction for want of service upon Arthur T. Walker, and (2) without waiving such objection to jurisdiction, for the purpose of objecting to the plaintiffs' amended writ and declaration for non-joinder of Lewis L. Delafield as defendant jointly with said Arthur T. Walker, and (3) without waiving such objections to the jurisdiction and to the non-joinder of said Delafield, for the purpose of removing said cause to the District Court of the United States." On February 8-11, 1922, there were filed by such attorneys the petition for removal to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts and bond, described in the opinion, a motion to dismiss the action "for the reason that no service of process herein has been made upon the said Arthur T. Walker as defendant in said amended writ," which motion was filed "without waiving" the petition and bond for removal; and a plea in abatement, which specifically stated that it was filed without a waiver of the petition and bond for removal and the motion to dismiss and which was based on a failure to join as defendant one Lewis L. Delafield of the city, county and State of New York.
The petition for removal was heard by Irwin, J., and he, being of opinion that the allowance or denial of the petition ought to be determined by this court before any further proceedings in the Superior Court, reported the case to this court for its determination as to whether or not the petition for removal should be allowed or denied.
Section 28, as amended, and Section 29 of the Judicial Code, 36 U.S. Sts. at Large, 1094, 1095; 38 U.S. Sts. at Large, 278, are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State St. Trust Co. v. Hall
...which the court had in mind in rendering these decisions. Swan v. Justices of Superior Court, 222 Mass. 542, 111 N.E. 386;Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23, 138 N.E. 798;Blumenthal v. Blumenthal, 303 Mass. 275, 21 N.E.2d 244. The plaintiffs have no right at common law to secure a dissolution of......
-
Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp.
... ... American Agricultural Chemical Co., 216 Mass. 423, 424, ... 103 N.E. 859; Booki v. Pullman Co., 220 Mass. 71, ... 107 N.E. 418; Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23, 27, 138 ... N.E. 798; Commonwealth v. Norman, 249 Mass. 123, ... 127, 144 N.E. 66; Mahoney v. United States Shipping Board ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Mannos
...was correct in the circumstances in which it was made, but it cannot be extended to a point that was not then before the court. Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23 . Rosen v. United States Rubber Co. 268 Mass. 403 Thibeault v. Poole, 283 Mass. 480 . We next consider the various exceptions taken o......
-
In re West
...in the agreement for compensation upon which he had no previous opportunity to be heard. Burlen v. Shannon, 3 Gray 387;Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23, 138 N.E. 798;Cleaveland v. Malden Savings Bank, 291 Mass. 295, 197 N.E. 14;Sandler v. Silk, 292 Mass. 493, 198 N.E. 749;Pesce v. Brecher, 302......