Pitkin County Min. Co. v. Markell

• Citation: 33 F. 386
• Parties: PITKIN COUNTY MIN. CO. v. MARKELL et al.
• Decision Date: 15 December 1887
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

33 F. 386

PITKIN COUNTY MIN. CO. v. MARKELL et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

December 15, 1887

Patterson & Thomas, for complainant.

Ward &amp Reuter, for defendant.

HALLETT J.

These suits were brought in the courts of the state, and thence removed by defendants into this court under the act of March 3, 1887. 24 St.at Large, 552. In the petitions for removal defendants allege that plaintiff is a Colorado corporation and that defendant Markell is a citizen of Minnesota, and defendant Foster is a citizen of Wisconsin, and that they were such citizens at the commencement of the suits. Therefore the question presented is whether a suit by a citizen of this state against citizens of other states in a court of this state may be removed into this court under the act of 1887, on petition of the defendants.

In support of the motions to remand, it is contended that the first section of the act of 1887 limits the jurisdiction of circuit courts to cases where the defendants, or some of them, are inhabitants of the district in which the court has jurisdiction, and this limitation is adopted by the second section, as defining the cases which may be removed. The paragraph of section 1 relating to this matter reads as follows:

'But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a circuit court or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.'

Standing alone, that part of this clause which declares that 'No civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant,' would afford strong support to the plaintiffs' position. But it does not stand alone; it is modified by the words following it, 'where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. ' And so modified, the law is that a suit may be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides whenever the defendant can be found therein, even when the defendant is not an inhabitant of such district. That this is the proper construction of the act is clearly shown by the debate in the senate on March 3, 1887, which will be found in volume 18 of the Congressional Record, p. 2724, as follows:

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. I should like to know from the judiciary committee, or the senator having the bill in charge, if it does not change the law where a suit is brought by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another state, when the federal jurisdiction arises solely out of that fact, so that a suit may be brought in either the district where the plaintiff resides or the defendant resides? Is there not a radical change in the law in that respect?

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa. No; I do not think there is a radical change.

Mr. Mitchell, or Oregon. Does not the first section, if it should become a law, enable a person residing in New York, for instance, to sue a person residing in the state of Oregon, for instance, by bringing a suit in the state of New York?

Mr. Edmunds. No; quite the reverse. He could only sue in Oregon.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. I do not understand it that way. What does this mean? 'But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant. ' What I wish to call attention to is what follows: 'But where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or defendant. ' What does that mean if it does not enable a person residing in the state of New York to sue a citizen of the state of Oregon in the district of New York, when the jurisdiction arises solely because of the fact that the suit is between citizens of different states?

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa. I do not think that is change of the section of the law that this bill proposes to modify.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. Does the senator mean to say that that is the law now?

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa. That is the law now.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. The act which the pending bill proposes to amend, the act of March 3, 1875, in the first section, speaking of jurisdiction, provides as follows: 'But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a circuit court or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts (that is, before the circuit or the district court) against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving such process or commencing such proceedings. ' That being the existing law, as I understand it, when a person wishes to sue an inhabitant of the state of California, he must go into that state, and bring his suit there, unless he happens to find the person he wishes to sue in some other district, and then he may sue there. Now, it is proposed to change that, as I understand.

Mr. Hoar. In the first place, the existing law allows a suit to be brought in the United States court between citizens of different states for amounts exceeding $500. That is put up to $2,000 . In the next place, it allows a plaintiff to sue a defendant, a citizen of another state, wherever he catches him all over the United States. That is the existing law; but the proposed change in the law is that he can only sue him, they being citizens of different states, either in the defendant's state, or, if the defendant happens to be in the district of the plaintiff's home, then in the plaintiff's district. So, instead of the sixty or seventy districts which, by the existing law, the plaintiff can sue him in, there are only two left. Suppose the defendant goes to the plaintiff's home, and is found there,-- a man doing business there: the plaintiff can sue him in the state court, and the defendant can take him to the United States court. It is certainly reasonable that the plaintiff should be permitted, in the first instance, to take him into the United States court.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. My friend then understands this section to mean that if the plaintiff, for instance, lives in the state of New York, and the defendant lives in the state of California, then the plaintiff may either go to California and sue there, or, if he happens to find him in the state of New York, he may sue him there; but he cannot sue him anywhere else.

Mr. Hoar. That is it exactly; and in the state of New York, without this proposed statute, he can take him into the New York state courts, and the defendant then can remove the cause to the United States court.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. I have no objection if that is the construction; but it seems to me that this latter part of the clause enables a plaintiff to bring suit in the district where the defendant does not reside, and where he is never found.

Mr. Hoar. In all the districts where both parties reside in the same state, the state court is presumed to have jurisdiction between the parties.

Mr Mitchell, of Oregon. Then the senator holds that, where the United States jurisdiction attaches only on...