Puget Sound Sheet Metal Works v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1912
• Docket Number: 2,099.
• Citation: 195 F. 350
• Parties: PUGET SOUND SHEET METAL WORKS et al. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

195 F. 350

PUGET SOUND SHEET METAL WORKS et al. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

No. 2,099.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

April 4, 1912

Gill Hoyt & Frye and Granger & Clarke, for plaintiffs.

F. V Brown and F. G. Dorety, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

This case was removed to this court from the superior court of the state of Washington for King county on the ground of diversity of citizenship. A number of corporations are joined as plaintiffs, only one of which is a corporation of the state of Washington. One of the others is an alien insurance corporation, and the others are insurance companies incorporated, respectively, under the laws of New York Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. The defendant is incorporated under the laws of Minnesota. The plaintiffs deny that this court has jurisdiction of the case and have moved to remand it to the state court, for the reason that this district is not 'the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.'

The action was commenced since the date on which the new Judicial Code went into effect, and for that reason the arguments upon the motion in behalf of the defendant assumed that a new question of federal jurisdiction is involved, for the decision of which it is necessary to construe the provisions of the Code relating to the jurisdiction of District Courts, the removal of causes, and the venue of actions. it must be conceded that the phraseology of the Code and the arrangement of the clauses relevant to said topics differ from the statutes defining the jurisdiction of United States Circuit Courts, which has been superseded, and for that reason it is contended that the decisions of the courts, heretofore rendered, bearing upon the question, are not controlling.

The provisions of the Code which it is necessary for the court to consider are as follows:

Section 24 provides that:

The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of 'all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, * * * where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3000.00, and * * * (b) is between citizens of different states, or (c) is between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.'

Section 28 provides that:

' * * * Any other suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the District Courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by this title, and which are now pending or which may hereafter be brought, in any state court, may be removed into the District Court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being nonresidents of that state.'

Section 51 provides that:

' * * * No civil suit shall be brought in any District Court 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, suits shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.'

No attempt to make a fine analysis of the clauses of the Code quoted above can demonstrate any substantial difference in their meaning from corresponding clauses of the statute superseded by the Code. By a comparison of the two statutes it appears that the changes made consist entirely of corrections of obvious errors in the misuse of words and omissions of superfluous words and phrases of the prior statute. The style is improved and the meaning made clearer thereby. The only other noticeable change is in the paragraphing and rearrangement of the clauses. It is true that the relative position of a sentence or clause in a statute might affect its meaning so as to require a new interpretation, but the Code itself prescribes a rule of construction which excludes the...