Fletcher v. Hamlet
| Decision Date | 18 January 1886 |
| Citation | 116 U.S. 408,29 L.Ed. 679,6 S.Ct. 426 |
| Parties | FLETCHER and another v. HAMLET and other. 1 Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
E. H. Farrar and E. B. Kruttschnitt, for plaintiffs in error.
B. R. Forman, for defendants in error.
This is a writ of error brought under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470. c. 137,) for the review of an order of the circuit court remanding a case which had been removed from a state court. It has been advanced under rule 32, and is now for hearing on its merits. In submitting the case, the defendants in error treat the rule as though it required a motion to dismiss or affirm. Such is not the proper practice. Cases advanced under section 3 of rule 32 are to be submitted like motions to dismiss under rule 6; that is to say, on printed briefs or arguments after service of notice and brief or argument, as required by section 4, rule 6.
The facts are these: Hamlet, Bliss & Elliott, citizens of Alabama, brought suit in the civil district court of the parish of Orleans, on the seventeenth of March, 1883, against the commercial firm of Fletcher, Wesenberg & Co., doing business in New Orleans, Louisiana, and composed of John F. Fletcher, Thomas O'Conner, William Wesenberg, and George M. Fletcher. Service of citation was made on the firm and William Wesenberg through Wesenberg in person, April 6, 1883. This was good service on the firm, and according to the laws of Louisiana a judgment in the action would bind Wesenberg personally, and the assets of the firm and of the other members of the firm in Louisiana. On the sixth of April, Wesenberg appeared, and filed exceptions to the petition on his own behalf and on behalf of the firm. These exceptions, which involved the merits of the case, were sustained in the district court, April 17, 1883, but on appeal to the supreme court the judgment of the district court was reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Wesenberg then filed an answer for himself and for the firm, May 22, 1884. On the fourth of June, 1884, process was issued and served on John F. Fletcher. The effect of this was to bring Fletcher into the suit so as to bind him personally by a judgment in the action, as well as his property in Louisiana. On the seventeenth of June, Fletcher filed exceptions individually and on behalf of the firm. These exceptions were referred to the merits, November 28, 1884, and Fletcher then filed his answer. The case was set down for trial December 4, 1884, but not being reached was ordered to be continued until the next jury term. A term of the court began on the first Monday in November,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbour v. Int'l Union
...Congress was undoubtedly aware of this longstanding “rule of unanimity” when it drafted § 1446(b). See Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U.S. 408, 410, 6 S.Ct. 426, 29 L.Ed. 679 (1886) (“There can be no removal by the defendants unless they all join....”). It is thus reasonable to conclude that Congr......
-
State of Washington v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...Ind. 492, 76 N. E. 100, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153, 6 Ann. Cas. 880; State v. Flannelly, 96 Kan. 833, 154 Pac. 235; Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U. S. 408, 6 Sup. Ct. 426, 29 L. Ed. 679; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 Sup. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 962; Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U. S. 56, 1......
-
Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
...Wilson v. Intercollegiate (Big Ten) Conference Athletic Ass'n, 668 F.2d 962, 965 (7th Cir.1982) (quoting Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U.S. 408, 410, 6 S.Ct, 426, 29 L.Ed. 679 (1886)) (holding that the amendment of a complaint to join federal civil-rights claims did not permit removal, where the ......
-
Johnson v. Marsh
...all of the defendants properly involved in that controversy must petition for, and be qualified to seek, removal. Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U.S. 408, 6 S.Ct. 426, 29 L.Ed. 679; Wilson v. Oswego Tp., 151 U.S. 56, 14 S.Ct. 259, 38 L.Ed. 70; Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 59 S.Ct. 347, 83......