Munnss v. American Agr. Chemical Co.

• Decision Date: 09 January 1914
• Citation: 216 Mass. 423,103 N.E. 859
• Parties: MUNNSS v. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

216 Mass. 423

103 N.E. 859

MUNNSS v. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 9, 1914

COUNSEL

Chas Toye and Jos. L. Keogh, both of Boston, for appellant.

Sawyer Hardy & Stone, of Boston (Edward C. Stone, of Boston, of counsel), for appellee.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is an action of tort brought in the superior court for the county of Suffolk by the plantiff, a resident of Boston against the defendant a corporation domiciled in the state of Connecticut. The ad damnum of the writ originally was $10,000. The action was entered on August 5, 1912. On August 9, 1912, the plaintiff filed a motion to reduce the ad damnum to $3,000, and this motion was allowed. On the same day the defendant filed a motion for the removal of the action to the federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship, alleging among other necessary averments that the matter in sipute between the parties exceeded $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and at the same time tendered a bond in-due form, which were accepted by the court. The plaintiff appealed from the order accepting the petition and bond for removal.

The case properly is here. Ellis v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R., 134 Mass. 338. The defendant has conceded in express terms, for the purposes of this case, 'first, that an amendment of the writ only is sufficient' without amending the declaration also, and 'second, that a plaintiff may amend his complaint before the petition and bond for removal are filed so as to demand $3,000 or a less sum, and thereby defeat a removal.' This concession is made advisedly and is supported by the authorities. Maine v. Gilman (C. C.) 11 F. 214; Waite v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (C. C.) 62 F. 769. The motive of a plaintiff in thus reducing the ad damnum of his writ is of no consequence and is not open to inquiry. If the ad damnum actually is reduced to an amount below the jurisdictional requirement before the petition for removal is filed, then as matter of law no ground for removal exists. Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 448-449, 26 S.Ct. 427, 50 L.Ed. 801; Wheeler v. Denver, 229 U.S. 342, 351, 33 S.Ct. 842, 57 L.Ed. 1219. Under the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1091 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 135])§ 24, the right of removal from the state to the federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship depends upon the question whether the amount at issue between the parties exceeds $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

The controversy in the case at bar resolves itself into an inquiry whether at the time the petition and bond for removal were filed the ad damnum of the plaintiff's writ exceeded $3,000. So far as the state court is concerned, however, this must be determined upon the face of the record, for it can make no decision of disputed issues of fact. If such questions are raised they can be heard and settled only in the federal court upon a petition to remand. Long v. Quinn Bros., 215 Mass. 85, 102 N.E. 348. The removability of an action from the state to the federal courts depends upon the pleadings and the state of the record at the time the petition is filed. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, 31 S.Ct. 460, 55 L.Ed. 521.

The record of the court by its docket entries in the...