Newell v. Byram
| Decision Date | 17 March 1927 |
| Citation | 18 F.2d 657 |
| Parties | NEWELL v. BYRAM et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Samuel A. Anderson, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.
F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb, and A. C. Erdall, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants.
This is a motion to remand. This suit was removed to the federal court under Judicial Code, § 33 (Comp. St. § 1015), on the ground that it involved a civil suit brought against officers of the court of the United States on account of acts done by them under color of their office or in the performance of their duties as such officers.
H. E. Byram, Mark W. Potter, and Edward J. Brundage are receivers of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, so appointed by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and by supplemental order they were also appointed receivers of said corporation by the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fourth Division. The action is brought to recover for alleged negligence of such receivers in operating a train at or near Minneapolis, Minn., whereby it is alleged that plaintiff sustained an injury.
By an amendment to section 33 of the Judicial Code, now section 1015, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1918, provision is made for the removal of any civil suit against any officer of the courts of the United States for or on account of any acts done under color of his office or in the performance of his duties as such officer. Under the authority of Matarazzo v. Hustis (D. C.) 256 F. 882, and Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada National Bank of San Francisco et al., 270 U. S. 438, 46 S. Ct. page 326, 70 L. Ed. 669, I hold that the action is removable to this court. A receiver under the appointment of the federal court is an officer of the court within the purview of this section. Matarazzo v. Hustis, supra.
The joining of more than one defendant does not prevent a receiver appointed by the federal court removing such case under section 33. American Locomotive Co. et al. v. Histed et al., 18 F.(2d) 656, filed on October 19, 1926, with the clerk of the District Court, Western District of Missouri (K. C.).
It is therefore ordered that the motion to remand be and is hereby denied.
On Reargument.
The motion herein to remand is here on order to show cause, for reargument, the court having previously, by an order dated January 11, 1927, denied the motion to remand. After considering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Potts v. Elliott, 336.
...associations with other defendants is removable under this statute. American Locomotive Co. v. Histed, D.C., 18 F.2d 656; Newell v. Byram et al., D.C., 18 F.2d 657. An examination of the authorities discloses that the courts have been very liberal in construing the statutory provision and h......