Horne v. Aderhold
| Decision Date | 12 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 1469.,1469. |
| Citation | 1 F. Supp. 690 |
| Parties | HORNE v. ADERHOLD et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
R. C. Horne, Jr., of Columbia, S. C., and Frank A. Bowers, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Hal Lindsay, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta Ga., for defendant Aderhold, Warden.
Plaintiff filed suit for damages in the superior court of Fulton county, Ga., against defendants jointly for alleged conspiracy to defame him and unlawfully deprive him of his liberty.
One of the defendants, A. C. Aderhold, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga., applied for and was granted a writ of certiorari under section 33 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 76) removing the suit to this court, upon the grounds that he was an "officer of the courts of the United States" and that all of his acts in the premises "were done by him as Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, in the performance of his duties as such officer of the courts of the United States," and that he had done "nothing whatever in the premises but to receive the plaintiff under the commitment issued by the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina * * * pursuant to which said commitment the plaintiff was regularly confined by defendant (Aderhold) as an officer of the Court issuing the commitment and charged with the duty of carrying out the directions, and pursuant thereto was required to serve the sentence imposed."
Plaintiff moved to remand the case on the grounds that Aderhold was not, and was not sued as, an "officer of the courts of the United States"; that the suit did not involve a separable controversy or a controversy between citizens of different states; and that all defendants did not join in the application for removal, and no removal petition or bond was filed in the state court.
The case depends solely upon its removability under section 33 of the Judicial Code, and the other questions relating to diversity of citizenship, filing bond, etc., need not be considered, as they form no part of the requirements for removing a case under said section.
The motion to remand was tried to the court upon the pleadings, which were all sworn to, without further evidence.
Two questions are presented: (1) Is the suit removable? (2) If so, is the entire suit removable or merely the part affecting Aderhold?
The pertinent part of section 33 of the Judicial Code is as follows: "When any civil suit * * * is commenced in any court of a State * * * against any officer of the courts of the United States for or on account of any act done under color of his office or in the performance of his duties as such officer, * * * the said suit * * * may at any time before the trial or final hearing thereof be removed for trial into the district court next to be holden in the district where the same is pending."
By the above-quoted provision, Congress has manifested the intention to permit the named officers to have suits against them, for acts done in the performance of their duties as federal officers, tried in the United States courts.
This would appear to be not only a safe-guard from possible hostile local situations, but a reasonable provision whereby the United States courts may in the first instance construe the powers and pass upon the conduct of federal officers in the performance of their federal duties.
As said by the Supreme Court: "The constitutional validity of the section rests on the right and power of the United States to secure the efficient execution of its laws and to prevent interference therewith, due to possible local prejudice, by state prosecutions instituted against federal officers in enforcing such laws, by removal of the prosecutions to a federal court to avoid the effect of such prejudice." Maryland v. Soper, 270 U. S. 32, 46 S. Ct. 185, 190, 70...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Fletcher
...L. Ed. 171; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; Illinois v. Fletcher, C.C.N.D.Ill., 22 F. 776; Horne v. Aderhold, D.C.N.D.Ga., 1 F. Supp. 690; Jones v. McGill, D.C.N.H., 46 F.2d 334; DeArnaud v. Ainsworth, 24 App.D.C. 167, 174, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 163; Farr v. Valentine......
-
Murphy v. Kodz
...have held the Barney rationale applicable to actions removed by federal officers under provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Horne v. Aderhold, 1 F.Supp. 690 (D.C.Ga.1932); Jones v. Elliott, 94 F. Supp. 567 (D.C.Va.1950); Bradford v. Harding, 284 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1960); Allman v. Hanley, 302 F.2......
-
Smith v. Puett
...grant such as a federal question or diversity jurisdiction2. Perez v. Rhiddlehoover, 247 F.Supp. 65, 71 (E.D.La.1975), Horne v. Alderhold, 1 F.Supp. 690, 691 (N.D.Ga.1932). Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. PAM §§ 2150 and 2151 which implement 3A TENN.CODE ANN. §§ 14-8-101......
-
Perez v. Rhiddlehoover
...(1932); Logemann v. Stock, 81 F.Supp. 337, 339 (D.Neb.1949). 17 Venable v. Richards, 105 U.S. 636, 26 L.Ed. 1196 (1882); Horne v. Aderhold, 1 F.Supp. 690 (N.D.Ga.1932); Pendleton v. Bussey, 30 F.Supp. 211 18 Neither diversity of citizenship nor the jurisdictional amount necessary for genera......