Grosso v. Butte Electric Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1914 |
| Docket Number | 176. |
| Parties | GROSSO v. BUTTE ELECTRIC RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Alex Levinski and Nolan & Donovan, all of Butte, Mont., for plaintiff.
Shelton & Furman, Peter Breen, and A. J. Verheyen, all of Butte, Mont., for defendant.
On motion to remand. Defendants are a foreign street railway corporation and its servants, jointly against whom plaintiff brings this a passenger's action for personal injuries due to the servants' negligence. The servants are designated John Doe and Richard Roe, true names unknown, respectively conductor and motorman of the car wherein plaintiff was passenger. The corporation removed the case hither for diverse citizenship. Its contention is that the servants, being designated by fictitious names and not served with process prior to removal, are merely nominal or formal parties, who can be ignored in removal. To this it cites Parkinson v. Barr (C.C.) 105 F. 82, and Loop v. Winters' Estate (C.C.) 115 F. 366.
These cases so hold, but therein they are not supported by the authorities upon which they purport to rely, and have no foundation i principle. The statutes of this state authorize designation of defendants by fictitious names when their true names are unknown to the plaintiff. The status of parties, whether formal or otherwise, does not depend upon the names by which they are designated, but upon their relation to the controversy involved, its effect upon their interests, and whether judgment is sought against them. When, as here, the cause of action is against them, and substantial relief sought against them, they are real parties in interest. Here, though designated by fictitious names, their citizenship is vital on removal, and, not appearing herein, removal was unwarranted.
Remand ordered. Costs to plaintiff.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullman Co v. Jenkins 13 8212 14, 1938, 210
...did not justify removal. His relation to the Pullman Company and his negligence as its servant were fully alleged. See Grosso v. Butte Electric R. Co., D.C., 217 F. 422. Nor does the fact that the residence of the porter was not set forth justify disregarding him. It was incumbent upon the ......
-
Young v. Quinlan
...the controversy involved, its effect upon their interests, and whether judgment is sought against them." quoting Grosso v. Butte Electric Ry. Co., 217 F. 422, 423 (D.Mont.1914)).10 The Seagoville defendants are: Charles Lewis, Seagoville Case Manager; Stan Ahlin, Seagoville Unit Manager; Je......
-
Maddux v. Gardner
... ... of action occurred. Sec. 3650, R. S. Mo. 1939; Gross v ... Butte Elect. Ry. Co., 217 F. 422; Jensen v. Safeway ... Stores, 24 F.Supp 585; Adams Exp. Co. v ... ...
-
Jensen v. Safeway Stores, 1716.
...contention of the defendant Safeway Stores, Inc., is demonstrated by what is said by Bourquin, District Judge, in Grosso v. Butte Electric R. Co. et al., D.C., 217 F. 422. There the noted jurist said page "On motion to remand. Defendants are a foreign street railway corporation and its serv......