Putnam v. Ingraham
| Decision Date | 23 March 1885 |
| Parties | PUTNAM and another v. INGRAHAM |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error for the review of an order of the circuit court remanding a suit to a state court. The suit was bro ght in the superior court of the county of Hartford, Connecticut, by George E. Ingraham, the defendant in error, a citizen of Connecticut, against N. D. Putnam and Henry Earle, citizens of New York, and W. G. Morgan, a citizen of Connecticut, as partners in business under the name of Putnam, Earle & Co., to recover a balance claimed to be due from the partnership on an account for money lent, paid out, and expended, and upon a note of $5,000 made by W. G. Morgan to the order of Putnam, Earle & Co., and by the firm indorsed to Ingraham. The complaint contained simply the common courts, but a bill of particulars subsequently filed disclosed the true nature of the claim to be the note, and an account for the purchase and sale of stocks beginning August 17, 1883, and ending February 29, 1884.
The defendants Putnam and Earle filed a separate answer, which contained (1) a general denial of all the allegations in the complaint; (2) an averment as to the account that the alleged loans were all made to the defendant Morgan for his individual and private use, and not to the firm; (3) an averment as to the note that it was given for money loaned to W G. Morgan alone for his individual use, and not to the firm, and that it was indorsed by Morgan in the name of the firm by collusion between him and Ingraham, and with intent to defraud Putnam and Earle; and (4) a statement that the partnership of Putnam, Earle & Co. was not formed until January 2, 1884, and that all the transactions in the bill of particulars before that date took place, if at all, between the plaintiff and William G. Morgan, who, during the years 1882 and 1883, was only the agent of Putnam and Earle, and not a partner with them, and that as to none of the items in the bill, dated in the year 1883, were they under any joint liability with Morgan as partners.
Morgan has never answered the complaint, and as to him the case stands on default. After filing their answer the defendants Putnam and Earle presented a petition to the superior court for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut. The material part of this petition, aside from a statement of the citizenship of the parties, is as follows: 'And your petitioners further say that in the suit above mentioned there is a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined between them, to-wit, a controversy between the present petitioners, N. D. Putnam and Henry Earle, and the said George E. Ingraham and William G. Morgan, as by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... Insurance Co. v. Carrier, 91 Tenn. 537, 19 S.W. 755; ... Fidelity Co. v. Huntington, 117 U.S. 280, 6 S.Ct ... 733, 29 L.Ed. 898; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U.S. 57, ... 5 S.Ct. 746, 29 L.Ed. 65. Moon, in his work on the Removal of ... Causes (section 142), thus summarizes the result of ... ...
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co
...Co. v. Carrier, 91 Tenn. 537, 19 S. W. 755; Fidelity Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280, 6 Sup. Ct. 733, 29 L. Ed. 898; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57, 5 Sup. Ct. 746. 29 L. Ed. 65. Moon, in his work on the Removal of Causes (section 142), thus summarizes the result of the decisions: "There......
-
Tolbert v. Jackson, 8877.
...249, 5 S.Ct. 456, 28 L.Ed. 949; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U.S. 52, 5 S.Ct. 735, 29 L.Ed. 63; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U.S. 57, 5 S.Ct. 746, 29 L.Ed. 65; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 114 U.S. 60, 5 S.Ct. 738, 29 L.Ed. 66; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U.S. 41, 5 S.Ct. 1034, 11......
-
Regis v. United Drug Co.
... ... 336, 26 L.Ed. 563; Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U.S. 407, 26 ... L.Ed. 823; Louisville & N.R.R. v. Ide, 114 U.S. 52, ... 5 Sup.Ct. 735, 29 L.Ed. 63; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 ... U.S. 57, 5 Sup.Ct. 746, 29 L.Ed. 65; Stone v. So ... Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 6 Sup.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 962; and ... Brooks v ... ...