Mason v. Salter, Civ. A. No. 2949.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1950 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2949. |
| Citation | 92 F. Supp. 627 |
| Parties | MASON v. SALTER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Robert Chandler, Shreveport, La., for plaintiff.
Watson & Williams, and Arthur C. Watson, all of Natchitoches, La., for defendant.
Plaintiff sues on an alleged "verbal agreement" for a balance of $6,093.61, claimed to be due him for work done in making "certain alterations and additions to defendant's residence * * *." The complaint states that he is "a resident and citizen of the County of Hidalgo, State of Texas."
Defendant, a citizen of Louisiana, according to the pleading, has moved to dismiss on the grounds that when complainant "executed the affidavit attached to his complaint on March 17, 1950, he was a resident of the City of Shreveport, and had been for many years prior thereto," and further "that the amount in controversy is actually less than $3000," or below the jurisdiction of this court.
A stipulation was filed in which it was agreed that:
1) On March 17, 1950, when plaintiff signed the affidavit supporting his petition, he "was still a resident of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana";
2) He "did, however, go to Texas immediately thereafter and was in Texas on March 20, 1950, when this suit was filed, and has remained in the State of Texas as a resident thereof * * * to the present date"; and
3) Defendant had paid "various subcontractors on this contract" the total sum of $1,771.25.
There was no further proof by either side. The verification of the complaint was, as stated, on March 17, 1950.
Taking the issues as to jurisdiction in reverse order, it is sufficient to say that, in so far as the amount is concerned, the complaint alleges a balance due for labor, etc., the defendant having furnished the materials, in the sum of more than $6,000, while the stipulation concedes this should be reduced by approximately $1,700, which would still leave the demand considerably in excess of $3,000. In the absence of any further proof to the contrary, the jurisdictional amount appears to be sufficiently established, and the motion to dismiss to that extent will be denied.
On the other hand, in so far as citizenship is concerned, the motion puts the plaintiff to the necessity of establishing it by proper proof. Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, 2d Ed., Volume 1, Page 746, Section 292, Verbo, Jurisdiction and Judicial Power; see, also, Ibid., Volume 4, Page 454, Section 1144, Verbo,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lancer Industries, Inc. v. American Insurance Company
...Co. et al., D.C.S.D.N. Y.1954, 129 F.Supp. 300; Welsh v. American Surety Co. of N. Y., 5 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 16; Mason v. Salter, D.C.W.D.La. 1950, 92 F.Supp. 627; Carson v. Dunham, 1887, 121 U.S. 421, 7 S.Ct. 1030, 30 L.Ed. 992. In order for an action to be removed from a State to a Feder......
-
Goltzman v. Rougeot
...372; Boesenberg v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 245, 141 A.L. R. 565; Lyons v. Weltmer, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 473; Mason v. Salter, D.C., 92 F. Supp. 627; Shreveport Long Leaf Lumber Co. v. Wilson, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 629. If it be true that his family lives in Houston, where he test......
-
Tipton v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
...92 F. Supp. 624 ... HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO ... Civ. No. 4796 ... United States District Court W. D. Oklahoma ... September ... ...