Ivanoff v. Mechanical Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 9229. |
| Citation | 232 F. 173 |
| Parties | IVANOFF v. MECHANICAL RUBBER CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Payer Winch & Rogers and E. P. Strong, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Reed Eichelberger & Nord, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
This cause was commenced in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county. The plaintiff is an alien; the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey. Within the time prescribed by statute, the defendant filed a petition for removal to this court, and before taking any other action in the case the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the cause to the state court.
Removal of cases from state to United States courts is provided for in sections 28 to 39, inclusive, of the Judicial Code, and the clause of section 28 applicable to this case reads as follows:
'Any other suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the District Courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by this title, and which are now pending or which may hereafter be brought in any state court, may be removed into the District Court of the United States for the proper district by the * * * defendants therein, being nonresidents of that state.'
'This title' in the above clause includes the entire Judicial Code, approved March 3, 1911, but the essential reference is to section 24. The plaintiff being an alien and the defendant a nonresident of this district, because organized under the laws of New Jersey, this case could not have been commenced in this court. Galveston, etc., Ry. v. Gonzales, 151 U.S. 496, 14 Sup.Ct. 401, 38 L.Ed. 248.
Only cases within the original jurisdiction of the District Court are removable from state courts. Cochran v. Montgomery County, 199 U.S. 260, 26 Sup.Ct. 58, 50 L.Ed. 182, 4 Ann.Cas. 451. Thus the question for decision becomes: Can this court acquire jurisdiction by removal, when it would not have had original jurisdiction if the same case had been commenced in this court?
The distinction which some courts have drawn between the jurisdiction of district courts as defined in section 24, and as the scope of that jurisdiction as modified by the venue sections, especially by section 51 of the Judicial Code, holding that jurisdiction is given by section 24 over cases which cannot be commenced in District Courts under section 51 seems to this court illusory and misleading.
Jurisdiction has been authoritatively defined as 'authority to hear and determine a cause. ' Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 418, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keating v. Pennsylvania Co.
...forum it has been held, on exactly similar facts, that the action was not removable, and granted a motion to remand. Ivanoff v. Mechanical Rubber Co. (D.C.) 232 F. 173. other districts decisions have been rendered, holding on these facts that actions cannot be removed to this court. Mahopou......
-
Isaac Kubie Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
... ... Ry. Co. (C.C.) ... 189 F. 220; Hall v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (D.C.) ... 197 F. 488; Ivanoff v. Mechanical Rubber Co. (D.C.) ... 232 F. 173; Jackson v. Wm. Kenefick Co. (D.C.) 233 ... F ... ...