Miner v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 22099.,22099. |
| Citation | 147 Minn. 21,179 N.W. 483 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | MINER v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; C. S. Jelley, Judge.
Action by Arthur Miner against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, in which plaintiff's attorney intervened to enforce his lien. Defendant's motion to remove the cause to the federal court was denied, and intervener applied for a writ of prohibition directing the district court of Hennepin county to refrain from further proceedings in the original action. Writ quashed.
Under Gen. St. 1913, § 4955, Laws 1917, c. 98 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, § 4955), an attorney has a lien for his compensation upon the cause of action of his client arising under the federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665); and in enforcing it in the original action, when his client and the defendant have settled without his consent, he proceeds as one subrogated to the original cause of action so far as necessary to protect his rights.
A state court has concurrent jurisdiction of an action under the Liability Act, and such action is not removable to a federal court upon the ground of diversity of citizenship. When an attorney intervenes in the original action, after a settlement without his consent, to enforce his lien for compensation, his controversy with the defendant is not removable to the federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Barrows, Stewart & Metcalf, of St. Paul, for proponents.
F. M. Miner, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Prohibition to the Hennepin district court directing it to refrain from further proceedings in an action therein brought by Arthur Miner against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company.
The ground of the writ is that the district court is without jurisdiction because the action has been removed to the federal District Court.
The action was under the federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665) for personal injuries. Issue was joined and pending trial the defendant, or the Director General of Railroads, settled with the plaintiff without the consent of his attorney, Stiles, who had a contract entitling him to compensation, and under the statute a lien therefor upon the plaintiff's cause of action. He intervened to enforce his right. It was agreed that issues should be framed and the case set for trial at a date fixed. The defendant afterward moved the district court to remove the action to the federal District Court, upon the ground of diversity of citizenship, and filed a proper petition and bond. The motion was denied. Thereafter the writ of prohibition now before us was issued. The claim is that the filing of the petition and bond operated as a removal.
1. The character of the lien of an attorney for his compensation is fixed by the statute. It is a lien upon the cause of action and may be summarily determined, in the event of a settlement without the attorney's consent, in the action out of which it arises. G. S. 1913, § 4955, Laws 1917, c. 98 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, § 4955). It is said that--
‘The statute vests in the attorney a legal right to resort to the cause of action, or any settlement thereof without his consent, for his compensation.’ Davis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 128 Minn. 354, 151 N. W. 128.
In Holloway v. Dickinson, 137 Minn. 410, 163 N. W. 791, it is held that the lien given by the statute attaches to a cause of action arising under the federal Employers' Liability Act. Upon review by the federal Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boright v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
...Southern R. Co. v. Puckett, 244 U. S. 571, 37 S. Ct. 703, 61 L. Ed. 1321, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 69, and cases cited; Miner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 147 Minn. 21, 179 N. W. 483. In Owens v. Chicago, etc., R. 113 Minn. 49, 128 N. W. 1011, 1013, we interpreted the amendment (c. 143, 36 Stat. 291, ......
-
Byram v. Miner
...Co., 143 Minn. 251, 173 N. W. 429, 430; Scharmann v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 144 Minn. 290, 175 N. W. 554; Miner v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 147 Minn. 21, 179 N. W. 483, 484; Miner v. Payne, 150 Minn. 103, 184 N. W. 673; Barnes v. Verry, 154 Minn. 252, 191 N. W. 589, 590, 31 A. L. R. 707; Balluff......
-
Pearson v. Zacher
...S. 430, 6 S. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 962; Ches. & O. Ry. Co. v. Cockerell, 232 U. S. 146, 34 S. Ct. 278, 58 L. Ed. 544; Miner v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 147 Minn. 21, 179 N. W. 483; Roberts v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 521, 51 N. W. 478; Id. (C. C.) 45 F. 433; 28 USCA § 72, annotations ......
-
Kowalski v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
...state and federal courts is concurrent, and, as the complaint was framed, the case was not originally removable. Miner v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 147 Minn. 21, 179 N. W. 483. It was held in G. N. R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U. S. 276, 38 Sup. Ct. 237, 62 L. Ed. 713, that, in the absence of a frau......