Mattoon v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 26 June 1894 |
| Citation | 62 F. 417 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | MATTOON et al. v. REYNOLDS. |
Wooster, Williams & Gagen and Webster & O'Neille, for plaintiffs.
Doolittle & Bennett, for defendant.
This controversy is between citizens of different states. The original complaint, in the state court, alleged that certain notes were given without consideration, and asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from negotiating said notes. After the time had expired within which the cause might originally have been removed, the plaintiffs filed a new count, alleging fraud, and asking for equitable relief, or for a judgment for $3,000 damages. In due season thereafter, the defendant removed the cause to this court.
The single question presented is whether, by the filing of the substituted complaint, the defendant acquired a right of removal. The determination of this question depends upon whether the amended complaint states a new and different cause of action, and one in which the original suit is merged. Yarde v. Railroad Co., 57 F. 913; Huskins v. Railroad Co., 37 F. 504; Evans v. Dillingham, 43 F. 177; State of Texas v. Day Land & Cattle Co., 49 F. 593, 596. It is clear that in this case the second count presents a distinct cause of action,-- fraud, calling for a distinct remedy at law; money, damages. The allegations contained in the first count and the relief therein prayed for are incorporated in the second count.
The motion to remand is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hager v. New York Oil Co.
...etc., R. Co., 169 U. S. 92, 18 S. Ct. 264, 42 L. Ed. 673; Yarde v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (C. C.) 59 (57) F. 913; Mattoon v. Reynolds (C. C.) 62 F. 417; Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bk., 212 U. S. 364, 29 S. Ct. 366, 53 L. Ed. 551; Haynes' Adm'r v. C., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 145 Ky. 209, Ann. Cas.......
-
Smithson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company
... ... other defendant. Huskins v. Cincinnati, 37 F. 504; ... Evans v. Dillingham, 43 F. 177; Yarde v ... Baltimore, 57 F. 913; Mattoon v. Reynolds, 62 ... F. 417; Cookerly v. Great Northern, 70 F. 277; ... Powers v. Chesapeake, 65 F. 129 ... When ... the ... ...
-
Atlantic Nat. Bank of Boston v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.
...he gave was one in which removability was first created by the amendment. His statement was hardly more than dictum. Mattoon v. Reynolds, C.C., 62 F. 417, was a decision of a district judge sitting in a circuit court, in reliance upon Evans v. Dillingham, supra. In Mecke v. Valley Town Mine......
-
Tucker v. Equifirst Corp.
...and FPP. 227 F.3d at 241–42. All of these authorities suffer from the infirmities discussed above. Johnson also relies on Mattoon v. Reynolds, 62 F. 417 (D.Conn.1894), and Baron v. Brown, 83 F.Supp. 520 (S.D.N.Y.1949). The twelve-line opinion in Mattoon simply cites Evans and three second-p......