Oakley v. Goodnow

Decision Date19 April 1886
Citation30 L.Ed. 61,118 U.S. 43,6 S.Ct. 944
PartiesOAKLEY v. GOODNOW. 1 Filed
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

C. H. Gatch, for plaintiff in error.

George Crane, for defendant in error.

WAITE, C. J.

This suit was brought in a state court of Iowa by Edward K. Goodnow, a citizen of New York, against Elizabeth T. Oakley, another citizen of the same state, to recover an amount claimed to be due for taxes paid by the Iowa Homestead Company and the Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Company, both Iowa corporations, on lands belonging to the defendant. Before the suit was begun the two corporations assigned their respective claims to Goodnow, under an agreement by which he was 'to use or exercise reasonable care or diligence to enforce said claims, demands, or rights of action, and, after deducting all costs and expenses in so doing, to hold the proceeds or amounts collected in trust for the use and benefit of the parties owning.' A copy of this agreement was annexed to the petition as an exhibit. On the sixteenth of December, 1880, which was in time, the defendant presented her petition for a removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Iowa, on the ground that Goodnow 'is only a nominal party to said suit, and has no interest therein whatsoever, but is prosecuting the same for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of the Iowa Homestead Company and Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Company, which were, at the commencement of this suit, and still are, corporations created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Iowa, each having its principal place of business in said state of Iowa, which said railroad and homestead companies directed the commencement of said suit, employed counsel to prosecute the same, and are directing and controlling its prosecution.' The state court proceeded with the suit notwithstanding the petition for removal, and gave judgment against the defendant. This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state on an appeal, that court being of opinion that the suit had not been removed. To reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought, and Goodnow now moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and with that he unites a motion to affirm.

The motion to dismiss must be denied, because a right of removal under the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470, c. 137,) was claimed by the defendant, and the decision was against the right. This presents a federal question, and gives us jurisdiction, but as the decision was in accordance with our judgment in Provident Sav. Soc. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1104, the motion to affirm is granted. In that case it was said, (page 641:) 'We know...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Lawrence Trust Co. v. Chase Sec. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1935
    ...U.S. 239, 245, 25 S.Ct. 251, 253, 49 L.Ed. 462;Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 432, 6 S.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 962;Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 6 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed. 61;Kimball v. Evans, 93 U.S. 320, 23 L.Ed. 920;Southern R. Co. v. Lloyd, 239 U.S. 496, 36 S.Ct. 210, 60 L.Ed. 402;Chesap......
  • Gebhard v. SS Hawaiian Legislator
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 9, 1970
    ...that the rules in Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806) (complete diversity), or in Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 6 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed. 61 (1886) (no removal though assignment is merely colorable), or in Joy v. City of St. Louis, 201 U.S. 332, 26 S.Ct. 478, 50 ......
  • Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 30, 2021
    ...or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court."); but see Oakley v. Goodnow, 118 U.S. 43, 45 (1886) ("[N]o authority has as yet been given [to the federal courts] to take jurisdiction of a case by removal from a state court when a c......
  • Williams v. Homeland Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 30, 2021
    ...has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court."); but see Oakley v. Goodnow , 118 U.S. 43, 45, 6 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed. 61 (1886) ("[N]o authority has as yet been given [to the federal courts] to take jurisdiction of a case by removal from a state c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT