Lyon v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

Decision Date27 April 1964
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1897.
Citation228 F. Supp. 810
PartiesKerry N. LYON, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

Melvin & Melvin, Laurel, Miss., for plaintiff.

E. R. Alley, William M. Deavours, Laurel, Miss., for defendant.

WILLIAM HAROLD COX, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff sued the railroad and its section foreman for damages for negligence and consequent personal injuries sustained by him on the evening of September 19, 1961, at a public railroad crossing in the city of Laurel, Mississippi. It was a dark and misty evening when a freight train of the railroad moving along its tracks was not seen by the plaintiff and was run into and against by the plaintiff in his automobile. The plaintiff said that he could not see the freight train which was the same color as the street, and that the flashing signal at this crossing was not working by reason of the negligence of the railroad and its said employee who had the responsibility for inspecting and keeping said signal device in proper operation.

The case proceeded to trial in the state court, and at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony the court sustained a motion of the individual defendant for a dismissal of the suit as against him. This dismissal was over the protest and strenuous objection of the plaintiff. The railroad thereupon promptly gave notice of its intention to file a petition to remove the case to this court. The petition for such removal was timely presented in due form, and was accompanied by a $2,000.00 surety bond approved by the court. The plaintiff has moved to remand this case to the state court as not being removable because the removal of the resident defendant from the case by the state court was not done with his approval but over his objection. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (b) among other things provides: "If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a petition for removal may be filed within twenty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." The plaintiff insists that the involuntary dismissal of the resident defendant does not remove him from the case, but that contention is untenable insofar as this proceeding is concerned. A plaintiff may nonsuit a case against the resident defendant, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Self v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1978
    ...Louis Dreyfus Corp., 380 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1967). There is, however, authority to the contrary. See Lyon v. Illinois Central R. R., 228 F.Supp. 810, 811 (S.D.Miss.1964); Parkhill Produce Co. v. Pecos Valley S. Ry., 196 F.Supp. 404, 406-07 (S.D.Tex.1961); Bradley v. Halliburton Oil ......
  • Valverde v. Maxum Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 31, 2021
    ...Parkhill Produce Co. v. Pecos Valley S. Ry. Co. , 196 F. Supp. 404, 406 (S.D. Tex. 1961) (Garza, J.).62 E.g., Lyon v. Ill. Cent. R.R. , 228 F. Supp. 810, 811 (S.D. Miss. 1964) ("Something must be read into this statute which the Congress did not write into it before it can be said that a ca......
  • Warren Bros. Co. v. Community Bldg. C. of Atl., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • December 6, 1974
    ...248 F. Supp. 1019 (W.D.Mo.1965). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in Lyon v. Illinois Central Ry. Co., 228 F.Supp. 810, 811 (S.D.Miss.1964), in ruling that an action was removable on the basis of the state court's dismissal of the resident defendant,......
  • Valverde v. Maxum Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 31, 2021
    ...... MAXUM CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and RODGERS PAUL TRUITT, Defendants. Civil Action No. ... plaintiff's favor against a railroad. company. [ 48 ] The state trial court dismissed all ... Court respectfully disagrees. Morgan 's central. reasoning is that the requirement that district ... banc decision in Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad. Co. [ 103 ] “‘resolv[ed] .... . . [ 62 ] E.g. , Lyon v. Ill. Cent. R.R. , 228 F.Supp. 810, 811 (S.D.Miss. ......
  • 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