Hyde v. Ruble
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 823,104 U.S. 407 |
| Parties | HYDE v. RUBLE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Distr ct of Minnesota.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Angus Cameron for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Gordon E. Cole, contra.
This was a suit begun by Ruble and Green, on the 6th of March, 1880, in a State court of Minnesota, upon an alleged contract of bailment made by the defendants as partners. The amount involved was a little more than $500. The plaintiffs were citizens of Minnesota. Only one defendant, Rowell, was a citizen of that State. The business of the alleged partnership was carried on there. He filed a separate answer to the complaint, in which he denied the existence of any partnership between himself and the other defendants, and set up a full performance of the contract on his part. The other defendants joined in a separate answer for themselves, in which they denied any partnership with him, and any contract between themselves and the plaintiffs. They also denied generally all the allegations of the complaint.
On the 12th of April, 1880, after these answers were in, all the defendants, including Rowell, filed in the State court a petition for the removal of the suit to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, on the ground of the citizenship of the parties. At the next term of the Circuit Court the cause was remanded to the State court. This order was entered in the Circuit Court July 31, 1880, and a copy thereof filed in the State court on the 11th of August. On the 12th of January, 1881, at a term of the State court which began on the 10th of that month, another petition was filed, by all the defendants who were not citizens of Minnesota, for a removal of the suit, as to themselves, on the ground that there could be a final determination of the controversy, so far as it concerned them, without the presence of Rowell as a party. It is not contended that this petition was filed in time to effect a removal under the second clause of the second section of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 470); but the State court, under the second clause of sect. 639 of the Revised Statutes, ordered a removal, so far as concerned the petitioning defendants, leaving the suit to proceed in that court as to Rowell. When the case was docketed in the Circuit Court under this second removal it was again remanded. To reverse these several orders of the Circuit Court this writ of error has been brought by the defendants.
This action is clearly one sounding in contract and not in tort. According to the allegations of the complaint the plaintiffs stored, at an agreed rate, their wheat with the defendants, who undertook to buy it and pay for it at the market price whenever the plaintiffs wanted to sell. The action is brought to recover what is alleged to be due on the price according to the terms of this contract. All the allegations of wrongful conversion are immaterial, and in no way change the character of the suit.
The suit, then, as it stands on the complaint, is in respect to a controvesy between the parties as to the liability of the defendants on a single contract. One ground of defence is, that there was no partnership between the defendants, and that Rowell alone was bound by the contract that was made; and another, that the contract, by whomsoever...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen
... ... a distinct controversy between themselves and the land ... company.' ... Blake ... v. McKim, 103 U.S. 336, 338, 25 L.Ed. 563; Hyde v ... Ruble, 104 U.S. 407, 409, 26 L.Ed. 823 ... Separate ... and distinct causes of action disclosed by the record in a ... single ... ...
-
State of Washington v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...117 U. S. 430, 6 Sup. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 962; Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U. S. 56, 14 Sup. Ct. 259, 38 L. Ed. 70; Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, 26 L. Ed. 823; Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336, 26 L. Ed. 563; Ayers v. Chicago, 101 U. S. 184, 25 L. Ed. 838; Wilson v. Big Joe Block Coal Co., ......
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co. v. American Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J.
...178 N.C. 607, 101 S.E. 376; Meyer v. Const. Co., 100 U.S. 457, 25 L.Ed. 593; Blake v. McKim, 103 U.S. 336, 26 L.Ed. 563; Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U.S. 407, 26 L.Ed. 823; Salem Trust Co. v. Finance Co., 264 U.S. 188, S.Ct. 266, 68 L.Ed. 628, 31 A. L. R. 867; Ferry v. Wiggins (D. C.) 287 F. 422; Ci......
-
Johnson v. Marsh
...probate of a will, part of the parties on one side of it cannot remove the cause where it is not removable as to all." In Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U.S. 407, 26 L.Ed. 823, upon whose authority Fraser v. Jennison partially rests, a remanding order was sustained in an action instituted in a Minnesot......