Edward Baggs v. Albert Martin
Decision Date | 03 December 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 205,205 |
Citation | 45 L.Ed. 155,179 U.S. 206,21 S.Ct. 109 |
Parties | EDWARD C. BAGGS, Receiver, Plff. in Err. , v. ALBERT G. MARTIN and Others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a cause brought to this court on a certificate from the judges of the circuit court of appeals of the eighth circuit. A statement of the facts and the questions put will be found in the opinion of the court.
[ Mr. A. M. Stevenson submitted the case for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. E. H. Wilson, E. Keeler, and H. N. Sales for defendants in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras:
Edward C. Baggs was, on July 1, 1898, duly appointed receiver of the Denver City Railroad Company, a corporation of the state of Colorado, by the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado, in an action brought in said court by the Central Trust Company, a corporation of the state of New York. While Baggs, as such receiver, was managing and operating said road one Mary E. Martin, while a passenger on the railroad, received injuries on account of which she died on August 7, 1898. Albert G. Martin, Harry D. Martin, and Herman H. Martin brought an action in the district court for the county of Arapahoe, state of Colorado, against Edward C. Baggs, as receiver of the Denver City Railroad Company, alleging that their mother, Mary E. Martin, had received fatal injuries by the fault and negligence of certain persons in the employ of siad receiver engaged in operating said road, and claiming damages, in accordance with the laws of the state of Colorado, against Edward C. Baggs in his capacity as receiver. Thereafter, on September 19, 1898, and within due time, the receiver presented his petition and bond to the district court for the county of Arapahoe, praying for the removal of said cause from said court to the circuit court of the United States for the District of Colorado, on the alleged ground that the said action was one arising under the laws of the United States, and was ancillary to said action and proceeding in said circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado, wherein said Central Trust Company of New York was complainant and said Denver City Railroad Company was defendant. This application to remove was granted, and thereafter a trial of said cause was had in the circuit court of the United States, and a verdict and judgment were recovered against the said Edward C. Baggs, as receiver of the Denver City Railroad Company, in the sum of $3,000. Thereafter, and in due season, the record in said cause was duly removed, by writ of error, to the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, where it still remains, the cause being as yet undecided. Whereupon the following questions have been certified to us by the judges of the said circuit court of appeals:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Fire Casualty Co v. Finn
...in the removal may be waived where the suit might originally have been brought in the Federal District Court. Baggs v. Martin, 179 U.S. 206, 21 S.Ct. 109, 45 L.Ed. 155.1 That was a suit against a receiver which could have been instituted in the federal court. It was removed there by the rec......
-
Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat Bank of San Francisco
...irregularity in the removal may be waived, where the suit might originally have been brought in the federal court, Baggs v. Martin, 21 S. Ct. 109, 179 U. S. 206, 45 L. Ed. 155. 7 Following the decision of this Court in Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cox, 12 S. Ct. 905, 145 U. S. 593, 36 L. Ed. ......
-
Holbein v. TAW Enterprises, Inc.
...a decade later, the Court abandoned this jurisdictional view of the substantive prerequisites to removal. See Baggs v. Martin , 179 U.S. 206, 21 S.Ct. 109, 45 L.Ed. 155 (1900). In Baggs , the plaintiffs brought a state-law claim in Colorado state court against a federal-court-appointed rece......
-
Rank v. (Krug) United States
...objection came too late. Under the circumstances it must be held to have been conclusively waived." See also Baggs v. Martin, 1900, 179 U.S. 206-209, 21 S.Ct. 109, 45 L.Ed. 155; American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 1950, 341 U.S. 6-16, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702; Monroe v. United Carbon Co., 5......