Leehans v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 17826.

Decision Date30 December 1959
Docket NumberNo. 17826.,17826.
Citation273 F.2d 72
PartiesBen C. LEEHANS, Appellant, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Garland R. Rolling, Metairie, La., for appellant.

Robert E. Leake, Jr., New Orleans, La., Faris, Leake & Emmett, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellee.

Before JONES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was plaintiff in the district court, sued the liability insurer of the operator of a restaurant charging that he sustained injuries to his hands from an acid alleged to have been present in the soap supplied in a washroom of the restaurant. Pain, suffering, disablement and disfigurement were alleged in the complaint and damages in the amount of $13,045 were sought. Diversity of citizenship was the basis of federal jurisdiction. The defendant, the appellee here, moved to dismiss and asserted, as a ground for the motion, that the injuries were so minor that the claim for damages exceeding the jurisdictional amount of $10,000 was not made in good faith. The deposition of the doctor who treated the plaintiff was taken. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendant. On appeal it is urged that where the pain and suffering are alleged the jurisdictional amount as alleged by a plaintiff must be accepted. Such is not the rule. Turner v. Wilson Line of Massachusetts, 1 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 414. The holding of the Supreme Court in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845, does not, as the plaintiff urges, require a reversal. The record sustains the action of the district court. Its judgment is

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Yonofsky v. Wernick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 26, 1973
    ...amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. See, e. g., Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1972);38 Leehans v. American Employers Insurance Co., 273 F.2d 72 (5th Cir. 1959);39 Turner v. Wilson Line, 242 F.2d 414 (1st Cir. 1957).40 The Nelson case exemplifies this approach. It was a......
  • Brown v. Donielson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • November 22, 1971
    ...cannot recover in excess of the jurisdictional amount. Turner v. Wilson Line, 242 F.2d 414 (1 Cir. 1957); Leehans v. American Employers Ins. Co., 273 F.2d 72 (5 Cir. 1959). The rule in the Second and Third Circuits appears to be that, when unliquidated damages are sought, the district court......
  • Thomas v. Travelers Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • September 27, 1966
    ...by the Court as the amount in controversy when determining whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. Leehans v. American Employers Insurance Co., 273 F.2d 72 (CA 5, 1959). With these well established principles in mind, we must look specifically at the respective claims of Nan Bernice Thom......
  • Deutsch v. Hewes Street Realty Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 30, 1966
    ...the plaintiff's case if it does not reasonably appear that the plaintiff can recover in excess of $10,000. See Leehans v. American Employers Ins. Co., 273 F.2d 72 (5 Cir. 1959); Sansone v. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 228 F.Supp. 554, 558 (E.D.La.1964). In the Third Circuit, however, the rule ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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