Plant v. Harrison
| Citation | 101 F. 307 |
| Parties | PLANT v. HARRISON et al. |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1900 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John E. Parsons and William D. Guthrie, for the motion.
Louis Cass Ledyard and Maxwell Evarts, opposed.
Under the Acts of 1887 and 1888 there can be no removal where the controversy is not one of which the circuit court would have original jurisdiction. The suit or action now under consideration seeks, among other things, the establishment of a certain document as a will. Whether this court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, and administer so much of the relief prayed for, seems to be a question not altogether free from doubt upon the authorities. Where doubt exists, the practice in this district is to remand. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Hoffman House (Jan. 16, 1894, unreported), where the opinion of Judge Caldwell in Fitzgerald v.Railway Co. (C.C.) 45 F. 812, was concurred in and followed. The motion to remand is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Washington ex rel. City of Seattle v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.
......Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co. (D.C.) 201 F. 932; Harley v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Co., 245. F. 471, decided by this court October, 1913; Plant v. Harrison (C.C.) 101 F. 307; Kelly v. Virginia Bridge. & Iron Co. (D.C.) 203 F. 566; Fitzgerald v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 45 F. 812; Johnson v. ......
-
Harley v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co.
......Chicago, M. & P.S. Ry. Co., supra; Barth v. Coler, 60 F. 466, 9 C.C.A. 81; New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Mfg. Co., 53 F. 19, 3 C.C.A. 399; Plant v. Harrison (C.C.) 101 F. 307; Groel v. U.S. Elec. Co. (C.C.) 132 F. 252; Harrington v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (C.C.) 169 F. 714. [245 F. 476] . ......
-
Richard v. National City Bank
...were regarded as open to doubt, I would be obliged in deference to authority to remand the case to the state court. Since Plant v. Harrison (C. C.) 101 F. 307, the rule in this circuit has been that, when the right to remove is doubtful, the doubt is resolved in favor of a remand. Wrightsvi......
-
Lorraine Motors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
...403; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. United Office & Professional Workers of America, D.C.D.N.J.1950, 93 F.Supp. 296; Plant v. Harrison, C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1900, 101 F. 307. Section 3 of the Act in question may properly be construed to exclude from the application thereof only actions commence......