Lorensen v. Jenney Manufacturing Company, Civ. A. No. 57-1252-A.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 57-1252-A. |
| Citation | 158 F. Supp. 928 |
| Parties | Joseph LORENSEN v. JENNEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Nathan Greenberg, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Thomas H. Walsh, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
On June 4, 1957 the plaintiff, a seaman, brought a libel on the admiralty side of this court against this defendant for maintenance and cure, as a result of illness occurring on defendant's vessel. The defense relied on was misrepresentation of a previous health condition. After trial on the merits in September the court found in favor of libellant. Lorensen v. Jenney Mfg. Co., D.C.D.Mass., 155 F.Supp. 213. Respondent paid the judgment, but made no further payment, claiming, I assume, that plaintiff's illness had reached an end result. Two months later plaintiff brought a suit in the Boston Municipal Court for the two months' additional maintenance. The defendant removed the action to this court, alleging that "the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $3,000." The plaintiff moves to remand to the state court. At the hearing on this motion it was stipulated that as of the date of the state court writ there was not due to the plaintiff more than the customary $8 a day for maintenance for the two unpaid months. It was further stipulated that the ad damnum specified in the writ was $3,000.
The removal of this action from the state court was so manifestly improper that I am writing this opinion to guard against such a happening again. In the first place, the petition was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the state court writ, or "process," as required by the removal statute. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(a). I do not consider whether this omission was intentional, except to observe that the writ, being limited to $3,000, would seem to have embarrassingly demonstrated that the allegation in the petition was erroneous. Where a party limits his demand to $3,000, there is no more than that involved for removal purposes, even if more would have been recoverable had it been demanded. Iowa Central Ry. Co. v. Bacon, 236 U.S. 305, 35 S.Ct. 357, 59 L.Ed. 591; Brady v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 6 Cir., 68 F.2d 302. The action may well become removable at the time, if any, that the demand is increased. Journal Pub. Co. v. General Cas. Co., 9 Cir., 210 F.2d 202. That question is not before me.
There is another reason why there was not $3,000 involved in this case. Maintenance and cure is an anomalous cause of action which does not give rise to general prospective damages.1 Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993. In the federal court the relief awarded may go to the date of trial, and possibly, in the discretion of the court, for a brief interval beyond. Calmar, supra. In the state court, except when general prospective damages are recoverable, liability on the law side of the court is normally fixed by the date of the writ. Fay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christenson Media Group Inc. v. Lang Indus. Inc.
...and defendants' failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand); Lorensen v. Jenney Mfg. Co., 158 F.Supp. 928, 929–30 (D.Mass.1958) (holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required ......
-
Kingman v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...v. Gibson-Rondon Corp., 421 F.Supp. 149 (C.D.Cal.1974) failure to file copy of any process, pleadings or orders; Lorensen v. Jenney Mfg. Co., 158 F.Supp. 928 (D.Mass.1958) copy of state court writ or process; Swartz v. Cleveland Worm & Gear Co., 85 F.Supp. 29 (E.D.Mo.1949) failure to attach......
-
Erwin v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.
...a fraud on the jurisdiction of the federal court." See, also, Stuart v. Creel, (S.D.N.Y.1950) 90 F.Supp 392; Lorensen v. Jenney Mfg. Co., (D.C.Mass.1958) 158 F.Supp. 928. In Barnes v. Parker, (W.D.Mo.1954) 126 F.Supp. 649, District Judge Ridge, now United States Circuit Judge Ridge of the E......
-
Hobbs v. Manley
...202 F. Supp. 719; Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Aguirre, D.C.Tex.1961, 199 F.Supp. 918; Lorensen v. Jenney Manufacturing Company, D.C.Mass.1958, 158 F.Supp. 928; and Erwin v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., D.C.Ark.1965, 239 F.Supp. 144. By this action of the plaintiff, he is barred from l......