Hutton v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1896
• Parties: HUTTON v. JOSEPH BANCROFT & SONS CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

77 F. 481

HUTTON v. JOSEPH BANCROFT & SONS CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Delaware.

December 16, 1896

Benj. Fields and Wm. S. Hillis, for the motion.

Bradford Vandegrift & Byrne, opposed.

WALES District Judge.

This suit was originally brought in the court of chancery of the state of Delaware for New Castle county, and was removed into this court on the petition of Victor G. Bloede, one of the defendants. In his petition, Bloede states that he is a resident and citizen of the state of Maryland; that the Bancroft & Sons Company, his co-defendant, and John Hutton the complainant, are citizens of the state of Delaware; that the Bancroft & Sons Company is only a nominal defendant while its actual interests are identical with those of the complainant; and that there is a separable controversy between the petitioner, on the one side, and the complainant and the Bancroft & Sons Company, on the other side. A motion is now made by complainant's solicitor to remand the cause to the state court, on the ground that the circuit court is without jurisdiction, as the pleadings do not show the existence of 'a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them.'

By the act of congress of March 3, 1887, as corrected by act of August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. 433), the circuit courts of the United States are given concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the several states of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $2,000 in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states. The second section of the act provides that any such suit 'now pending, or which may hereafter be brought in any state court, may be removed to the circuit court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of that state. And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district.'

Since the decision in Meyer v. Construction Co., 100 U.S. 457-468, the construction and meaning of the provision in the second section of the act just quoted can no longer be doubted. In that case, which was one of several called 'Removal Cases,' the court held:

'That when a controversy about which a suit in a state court is brought is between citizens of one or more states, on one side, and citizens of other states, on the other side, either party to the controversy may remove the suit to the circuit court, without regard to the position they occupy in the pleadings as plaintiffs or defendants. For the purpose of a removal, the matter in dispute may be ascertained, and the parties to the suit arranged on opposite sides of that dispute. If, in such arrangement, it appears that those on one side are all citizens of different states from those on the other, the suit may be removed. Under the old law, the pleadings only were looked at, and the rights of the parties in respect to a removal were determined solely according to the position they occupied as plaintiffs or defendants in the suit. Under the new law, the mere form of the pleadings may be put aside, and the parties placed on different sides of the matter in dispute, according to the facts.'

This construction was put on the old removal law of 1875, but is conceded to be equally applicable to the later act of 1887. This decision was followed in Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U.S. 562, where the court said that the particular position, whether as complainants or defendants, assigned to the parties by the draftsman of the bill, may be disregarded when it is apparent that there is a single controversy embracing the whole suit, between citizens of different states.

See, also, Evers v. Watson, 156 U.S. 532, 15 Sup.Ct. 430; Wolcott v. Sprague, 55 F. 545; Anderson v. Bowers, 40 F. 708; Water Co. v. Babcock, 76 F. 248, and cases there cited.

Where the controversy is between the complainant and the removing defendant, who are citizens of different states, the fact that there is another defendant, who is a citizen of the complainant's state, does not prevent the case from being removed, where the interest of such co-defendant is identical with that of complainant. Brown v. Murray, Nelson & Co., 43 F. 614.

Such being the settled law, the next inquiry is to ascertain the nature of the controversy between the parties to the present suit, and in what position they jointly or severally stand in relation thereto. The complainant's bill alleges that he is the owner of 84 shares, of the value of $100 each, of the stock of the Joseph Bancroft & Sons Company, which was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware September 21, 1889...