Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Sec. Corp.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtRUGG
Citation198 N.E. 905,292 Mass. 481
Decision Date27 November 1935
PartiesLAWRENCE TRUST CO. v. CHASE SECURITIES CORPORATION. WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAME. PLYMOUTH COUNTY TRUST CO. v. SAME.

292 Mass. 481
198 N.E. 905

LAWRENCE TRUST CO.
v.
CHASE SECURITIES CORPORATION.

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS BANK & TRUST CO.
v.
SAME.

PLYMOUTH COUNTY TRUST CO.
v.
SAME.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Nov. 27, 1935.


Actions of contract or tort by the Lawrence Trust Company against the Chase Securities Corporation, by the Western Massachusetts Bank & Trust Company against the Chase Securities Corporation, and by the Plymouth County Trust Company against the Amerex Holding Corporation. From orders allowing removal of the actions to the District Court of the United States, the plaintiffs appeal.

Orders affirmed.


Appeals from [292 Mass. 481]Superior Court, Essex County; Gray and Broadhurst, judges.

[292 Mass. 482]F. L. Simpson, of Boston (D. J. Cohen and J. A. Scolponeti, both of Boston, with him) for appellants.

M. Jenckes and R. Donaldson, both of Boston, for appellee.


RUGG, Chief Justice.

The writ in each of these actions, sued out of the Superior Court, is brought in the name of a banking corporation organized under the laws of this commonwealth against the Chase Securities Corporation, now known as Amerex Holding Corporation, organized under the laws of the state of New York. Each cause of action is described as contract or tort. Each plaintiff is stated, in the writ or declaration or both, to be in the possession of Henry H. Pierce, commissioner of banks for this

[198 N.E. 906]

commonwealth. The defendant in each action seasonably filed a petition under sections 28 and 29 of the Judicial Code of the United States (U.S.C.A. title 28, §§ 71, 72), that the suit by removed to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts because the action was of a civil nature, the amount in dispute exceeded $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs and the plaintiff and the defendant were citizens and residents of different states, and that the bond filed therewith be accepted as good and sufficient. In each case an order was entered accepting the petition and bond and in substance allowing or directing the removal of the suit to the District Court of the United States, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The appeals are rightly before us. Ellis v. Atlantic & Pacific R. Co., 134 Mass. 338;Long v. Quinn Bros., Inc., 215 Mass. 85, 86, 102 N.E. 348;Munnss v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 216 Mass. 423, 424, 103 N.E. 859;Commonwealth v. Norman, 249 Mass. 123, 126, 144 N.E. 66.

The plaintiffs raise no question as to form or seasonableness of the petition for removal, the sufficiency of the bond, or the jurisdictional amount involved. The single contention presented in behalf of each plaintiff is that the case is not subject to removal because it is in its essential nature and effect an action brought by the commonwealth through one of its administrative officers and, as the commonwealth is not considered a citizen within the meaning of the removal statute, the petition for removal on the ground of [292 Mass. 483]diversity of citizenship fails in law. If that contention is sound, the cases are not removable. Commonwealth v. Norman, 249 Mass. 123, 127, 144 N.E. 66;Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 433, 6 S.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 962;Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State of Idaho For Use of Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566;Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 461, 35 S.Ct. 173, 59 L.Ed. 316;Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co., 288 U.S. 476, 484, 53 S.Ct. 447, 77 L.Ed. 903;City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schnader, 291 U.S. 24, 29, 54 S.Ct. 259, 78 L.Ed. 628.

On a petition for removal all issues of fact must be tried in the federal court, as well those relating to the removability of the cause as those touching the merits of the suit. The state court is without jurisdiction in that particular but must accept as true in determining whether to surrender jurisdiction the allegations of fact set forth in the petition. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U.S. 513, 515, 516, 7 S.Ct. 1262, 30 L.Ed. 1159;Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad & Daughtry, 138 U.S. 298, 303, 11 S.Ct. 306, 34 L.Ed. 963;Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 154, 34 S.Ct. 278, 58 L.Ed. 544.

It is, however, ‘wll settled that if, upon the face of the record, including the petition for removal, a suit does not appear to be a removable one, then the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made.’ Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 245, 25 S.Ct. 251, 253, 49 L.Ed. 462;Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 432, 6 S.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 962;Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 6 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed. 61;Kimball v. Evans, 93 U.S. 320, 23 L.Ed. 920;Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, 36 S.Ct. 210, 60 L.Ed. 402;Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146, 34 S.Ct. 278, 58 L.Ed. 544;Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 38 S.Ct. 237, 62 L.Ed. 713. There is nothing contrary to this proposition in Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. McCabe, 213 U.S. 207, 29 S.Ct. 430, 53 L.Ed. 765.

It has been the practice and held to be the duty of this court in cases properly brought before it, to consider and decide whether as matter of law a cause for removal is made on the face of the record, of course subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States. That was adjudicated in Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 503, in an exhaustive opinion by Chief Justice Gray speaking for the court, wherein all the pertinent and authoritative decisions previously rendered were reviewed. It was there said, [292 Mass. 484]129 Mass. 503, at page 508: ‘This court has uniformly held that any court of the Commonwealth, before declining the further exercise of jurisdiction over a cause, must consider and determine whether, upon the record and papers before it, the petitioner has brought himself within the acts of Congress.’ Similar procedure was followed in Duff v. Hildreth, 183 Mass. 440, 67 N.E. 356, where the opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Knowlton,

[198 N.E. 907]

To the same effect are Broadway National Bank v. Adams, 130 Mass. 431;Danvers Savings Bank v. Thompson, 130 Mass. 490;Ellis v. Atlantic & Pacific R. Co., 134 Mass. 338;Long v. Quinn Bros., Inc., 215 Mass. 85, 86, 102 N.E. 348;Munnss v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 216 Mass. 423, 424, 103 N.E. 859;Booki v. Pullman Co., 220 Mass. 71, 107 N.E. 418;Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23, 27, 138 N.E. 798;Commonwealth v. Norman, 249 Mass. 123, 127, 144 N.E. 66;Mahoney v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 253 Mass. 234, 236, 148 N.E. 454, and Pringle v. Storrow, 256 Mass. 561, 153 N.E. 26, 49 A.L.R. 1222. See, also, Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 275, 276.

The state is not named as a party to the present actions. In each, the trust company is described as the party plaintiff with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Commonwealth v. McHugh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 7, 1950
    ...109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70; Atlantic Fishermen's Union v. Barnes, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 927; Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., 292 Mass. 481, 198 N.E. 905. 2. The defendants filed a paper entitled 'Motion to Dismiss and Quash Bill of Complaint, Subpoenae and Orders of Notice,' whe......
  • Atlantic Nat. Bank of Boston v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 8, 1938
    ...G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 214, § 19. Duff v. Hildreth, 183 Mass. 440, 67 N.E. 356. See, also, Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., Mass., 198 N.E. 905;Graustein v. Dolan, 282 Mass. 579, 583, 185 N.E. 489. By the Constitution of the United States, article 3, § 2, the judicial power of the U......
  • Prescott v. Sec'y of Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 17, 1938
    ...be challenged. It is supported by public laws of which judicial notice may be taken. Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., Mass., 198 N.E. 905. See, for example, St. 1932, c. 310, §§ 5, 6; St.1936, c. 304; St.1936, c. 432; G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 40, § 5; c. 53, § 29. Compare St.1937, c. 4......
  • Crews v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., Case Number: 29048
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • March 4, 1941
    ...Riches v. Hadlock, 80 Utah, 265, 15 P.2d 283; State v. Baldwin, 109 Vt. 143, 194 Atl. 372; Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., 292 Mass. 481. 198 N. E. 905. ¶14 Under somewhat similar statutes of other states (see. 75, Rev. Code, Arizona, 1928; sec. 403, Rev. St. of Idaho, 1887) i......
4 cases
  • Commonwealth v. McHugh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 7, 1950
    ...109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70; Atlantic Fishermen's Union v. Barnes, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 927; Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., 292 Mass. 481, 198 N.E. 905. 2. The defendants filed a paper entitled 'Motion to Dismiss and Quash Bill of Complaint, Subpoenae and Orders of Notice,' whe......
  • Atlantic Nat. Bank of Boston v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 8, 1938
    ...G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 214, § 19. Duff v. Hildreth, 183 Mass. 440, 67 N.E. 356. See, also, Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., Mass., 198 N.E. 905;Graustein v. Dolan, 282 Mass. 579, 583, 185 N.E. 489. By the Constitution of the United States, article 3, § 2, the judicial power of the U......
  • Prescott v. Sec'y of Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 17, 1938
    ...be challenged. It is supported by public laws of which judicial notice may be taken. Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., Mass., 198 N.E. 905. See, for example, St. 1932, c. 310, §§ 5, 6; St.1936, c. 304; St.1936, c. 432; G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 40, § 5; c. 53, § 29. Compare St.1937, c. 4......
  • Crews v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., Case Number: 29048
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • March 4, 1941
    ...Riches v. Hadlock, 80 Utah, 265, 15 P.2d 283; State v. Baldwin, 109 Vt. 143, 194 Atl. 372; Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Securities Corp., 292 Mass. 481. 198 N. E. 905. ¶14 Under somewhat similar statutes of other states (see. 75, Rev. Code, Arizona, 1928; sec. 403, Rev. St. of Idaho, 1887) i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT