Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick
| Decision Date | 01 March 1881 |
| Citation | 6 F. 654 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | FALLS WIRE MANUF'G CO. v. BRODERICK |
Louis R. Tatum, for plaintiff.
Noble & Orrick, for defendant.
TREAT D.J.
The plaintiff, an Ohio corporation, brought suit in the state circuit court for less than $300, the defendants being citizens of Missouri. The defendants appeared (February 8th) and filed an answer and counter claim. The counter claim is based on an alleged contract in writing, for the non-performance of which the defendants have sustained damaged (unliquidated) in the sum of $1,000. No written contract was filed, or profert thereof made. On the following day the defendants filed a petition for the removal of the cause to this court. Under the act of March 3, 1875, the defendants, though citizens of Missouri, had a right to the removal, the plaintiff being a citizen of another state, provided the amount in dispute exceeds $500. The plaintiff claims less than $500, but the defendants, by way of counter claim, demand $1,000. The Missouri statute requires that the written contract on which such counter claim is based should be filed; and under the more recent decisions of the supreme court of Missouri, if not filed, a motion to dismiss, etc., would lie. But the defendants having filed their answer and counter claim on February 8th, but not the written contract, appeared next day, February 9th, with petition, etc., for removal to this court, an order for which was duly granted. The act of 1875 provides for the removal of a civil suit 'where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $500, * * * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states. ' Hence the parties are within its terms as to citizenship. Are they as to the amount in dispute? Judge Blatchford has recently held (Clarkson v. Manson, [*]) in a case similar to this, that although the plaintiff's demand was for less than $500, yet as the defendant's counter claim for judgment over was for more than $500, the cause was removable. If that be a true interpretation of the act, the door for removals is wide open, whenever a defendant, for purposes of delay or otherwise, chooses to interpose a counter claim for more than the prescribed sum; thus drawing into United States courts the trial, through the device of a counter claim, of any cause in which the amount claimed by plaintiff, although less than $500, is to be determined. It may be, on the other hand, that the original dispute involves thousands of dollars. How shall a United States court avoid fraud on its jurisdiction on one hand, and preserve the just right of removal on the other? Must it await the final outcome, and then render judgment as the facts may require, pursuant to the terms of section 5 of the act of 1875, by remanding or dismissing?
An important inquiry in this case arises under section 6 of said act, viz.: That the circuit court of the United States shall, in all suits removed under the provisions of this act, proceed therein as if the suit had been originally commenced in said circuit court, and said proceedings had been taken in such suit in said circuit court as shall have been had therein in said state court prior to its removal. ' The purpose of this section is, obviously, that all proceedings after removal shall be as if the suit was originally brought in the United States circuit court, and all had in the state court before removal shall stand on the same footing. Hence, when the answer and counter claim were filed, February 8th, in the state court without the alleged contract in writing, the plaintiff could have interposed a motion for dismissal; but, as the case was removed to this court before opportunity given for such motion, his right to do so still remains. Suppose such a motion interposed here and sustained, what would be the status of the case? Under section 5 no dismissal of the case should be had, for the plaintiff would not be at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enger v. Northern Finance Corporation
...is said to be the rule in Illinois C. R. Co. v. A. Waller & Co. (C. C.) 164 F. 359; Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick (C. C.) 2 McCrary; 489, 6 F. 654; Indian Mountain Jellico Coal Co. v. Asheville Ice & Coal Co. (C. C.) 135 F. 837; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co. (C. C.) 44 F. 645; B......
-
Trullinger v. Rosenblum
...conclusion, and is sustained by Yankaus v. Feltenstein & Rosenstein, 1917, 244 U.S. 127, 37 S.Ct. 567, 61 L.Ed. 1036; Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick, C.C., 6 F. 654; Groel v. United Electric Co., C.C., 132 F. 252; McKown v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., C.C., 105 F. "The provisions of section ......
-
Haney v. Wilcheck, 48
...theory which regards the counterclaimant as in the position of plaintiff as to the counterclaim. In Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick, C.C.Mo.1881, 6 F. 654, the plaintiff's suit in the state court was for less than the removable amount; a counterclaim for the necessary amount was filed by d......
-
Ingram v. Sterling
...amounts claimed by way of counterclaim could not be considered as increasing the amount of the required sum. Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick, C.C.Mo., 6 F. 654; Gates v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., D.C., 56 F.Supp. 149; Stuart v. Creel, D.C., 90 F.Supp. "However, there are decisions by ot......