Juillard v. Barr
| Decision Date | 10 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | 125. |
| Citation | 177 F. 921 |
| Parties | JUILLARD et al. v. BARR. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Boothby & Baldwin (John W. Boothby, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Epstein Bros. (J. S. Epstein, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, a citizen of Pennsylvania, brought this suit on contract in the Supreme Court of the state of New York against the defendants, citizens of that state. They removed the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States where it was tried and a judgment entered for the plaintiff which is before us on writ of error. Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, Sec. 2, 18 Stat. 470, as amended by Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 509), provides that a civil suit pending in a state court of which the Circuit Court is given jurisdiction by section 1, may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein being 'nonresidents of that state.' Section 5 of the same act makes it the duty of the Circuit Court to proceed no further when it shall appear that such suit does not involve a controversy within its jurisdiction. As the petition for removal states that the defendants are all residents of the state of New York, they were not entitled to remove and we are without jurisdiction. Martin v. Snyder, 148 U.S. 663, 13 Sup.Ct. 706, 37 L.Ed. 602;
Freeman v. Butler (C.C.) 39 F. 1.
The judgment is reversed and the Circuit Court directed to enter an order remanding the cause to the state court; costs of the Circuit Court and of this court to be paid by the defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co.
...or joint action of parties was presented (nor does such question of waiver, etc., seem to have been presented in Juillard v. Barr C. C. A. 2 177 F. 921, 101 C. C. A. 201); and in the majority of similar cases where remand has been made diverse citizenship and jurisdictional amount in disput......
-
Monroe v. United Carbon Co., 13717.
...144 U.S. 529, 12 S.Ct. 726, 36 L.Ed. 528; Martin v. Snyder, 148 U.S. 663, 13 S.Ct. 706, 37 L.Ed. 602), and we followed in Juillard v. Barr, 2 Cir., 177 F. 921, and said as much obiter in Dickinson, etc., Co. v. Dickinson, 2 Cir., 29 F.2d 493, 494. But the reverse was held in Baggs v. Martin......
-
Bailey v. Texas Co.
...U. S. 529, 12 S. Ct. 726, 36 L. Ed. 528; Martin v. Snyder, 148 U. S. 663, 13 S. Ct. 706, 37 L. Ed. 602), and we followed in Juillard v. Barr (C. C. A.) 177 F. 921, and said as much obiter in Dickinson, etc., Co. v. Dickinson (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 493, 494. But the reverse was held in Baggs v......