Removal Cases Meyer v. Construction Company Construction Company v. Meyer Railroad Company v. Meyer

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWAITE
Citation100 U.S. 457,25 L.Ed. 593
PartiesREMOVAL CASES. MEYER v. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. MEYER; RAILROAD COMPANY v. MEYER
Decision Date01 October 1879

100 U.S. 457
100 U.S. 457
25 L.Ed. 593
REMOVAL CASES.
MEYER
v.
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
MEYER;
RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
MEYER.
October Term, 1879

THE first case is here in error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.

Page 458

The remaining cases are appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.

These cases present the following facts: On the 6th of August, 1870, the Delaware and St. Paul Railroad Company, an Iowa corporation, contracted with the Delaware Railroad Construction Company, also an Iowa corporation, for the construction of that part of its railroad lying in Delaware County, Iowa. The contract contained full specifications of the work to be performed and the prices to be paid, and concluded as follows:——

'The prices above specified are to be in full compensation for all materials and labor required to put the same into the work herein contracted for, and complete the same in all respects as provided in this contract. In order to enable the contractor to prosecute the work advantageously, the said engineer shall make an estimate from time to time, not oftener than once per month, as the work progresses, both on work done and materials delivered on the line of said railroad. The said party of the second part will pay in current money eighty per cent of the amount of said estimate; twenty (20) per cent of the estimates, as they are made to the party of the first part, may be retained by the party of the second part as damages in case of a forfeiture of this contract; which said (20) twenty per cent, together with the whole amount of this contract, according to the terms thereof, and on the estimate of the engineer, shall be paid to the party of the first part within thirty days after all the work herein contracted for is completed and accepted by the engineer. 'Qualified below.'

'The above payments on estimates shall be made every thirty (30) days, at the office of the president of said Davenport and St. Paul Railroad Company, in Davenport. The Davenport and St. Paul Railroad Company may stop all work at any time, without payment of damages, by giving thirty days' notice.

'Whenever five consecutive miles of work from the south line of Delaware County are completed by the party of the first part, and accepted by the party of the second part, the party of the second part shall pay the full amount of the contract price for said work on said five miles within thirty days after said work is accepted, without the deduction of said twenty per cent, and for every additional five consecutive miles of the south end of the work completed by said first party, said second party shall pay in like manner within

Page 459

thirty days after the same has been accepted, and so on through the county from south to north.

'Signed this sixth day of August, A.D. 1870.

'R. EDDY, Pres.

'J. M. BRAYTON, Sec'y.

'F. B. DOOLITTLE, Treas.

'Board of Directors of the Delaware Railroad Construction Company.

'All the money for the work hereinbefore specified to be paid by the citizens of Delaware County.

'H. PRICE,

'Pres't Dav. and St. Paul R. R. Co.'

The work under this contract was commenced Sept. 29, 1870, and completed Oct. 31, 1872. On the 20th of December, 1872, the construction company filed in the office of the clerk of the District Court of Delaware County the statements and accounts required by the laws of Iowa to secure a mechanic's lien on the part of the railroad which had thus been completed. The balance claimed to be due was $71,165.58.

On the 4th of June, 1872, there was filed for record in the office of the recorder of Delaware County a mortgage, bearing date July 1, 1871, but acknowledged May 16, 1872, whereby the railroad company conveyed its entire line of railroad, including with the rest that built by the construction company, to William Dennison, a citizen of the State of Ohio, and J. Edgar Thompson, a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, as trustees, to secure the payment of a proposed issue of bonds, amounting in the aggregate to six millions of dollars. Provision was made for the appointment of a new trustee in case of the death of either of those named in the deed.

On the 15th of January, 1874, the construction company commenced a suit in equity in the Circuit Court for the county of Delaware, a State court to enforce its merchanic's lien, and in the petition priority was claimed for this lien over that of the mortgage. In this suit, the railroad company, Thompson and Dennison, as trustees, the Davenport Railway Construction Company, an Iowa corporation, and Lucius Howard, were named as defendants, but process was served only on the railroad company. On the 28th of January, the railroad company appeared and filed an answer, substantially admitting the allegations in

Page 460

the petition except as to the amount due. Credits were claimed, however, beyond those acknowledged by the construction company, and a reference was asked for a statement of the accounts. To this answer a reply was filed January 30. On the 6th of February the construction company and the railroad company appeared by their respective counsel, and a motion by the railroad company for a reference being overruled, the court proceeded to receive evidence in the cause. In this state of the case, it was agreed between the parties then appearing, to wit, the construction company and the railroad company, as follows:——

'The case as to these parties is referred to Henry Harger, Esq., who appears in open court and accepts the appointment of referee, with power to examine witnesses, books, and papers and accounts, and upon the findings of said referee being reported to the judge of this court, a judgment, by agreement of said parties in open court, is to be entered for the amount due, and a decree for a mechanic's lien to be made establishing such lien, the hearing to commence on Monday morning, Feb. 9, 1874, at nine o'clock A.M., at the office of said Harger in Delhi, Iowa, and to continue from day to day until completed.

'And by said agreement of said parties the judgment is to be entered as of the last day of this January Term, 1874, of this court, and the cause is by order of court continued as to all the defendants except said Davenport and St. Paul Railroad Company.'

The referee proceeded to the hearing and presented his report, which was approved by the circuit judge on the 13th of February, and the judge at the same time directed the clerk to enter a judgment in accordance with the finding as of February 6, the last day of the preceding term. On the 14th of February the referee filed his report and the indorsement of the judge thereon with the clerk, and the clerk entered a judgment in favor of the construction company for $51,930.54, with interest at six per cent from February 6, and establishing a lien upon the railroad in the county to secure the payment. A special execution for the sale of the property in accordance with this judgment was also ordered. On the 17th of February, such an execution was issued, and on the 4th of May the property was sold by the sheriff to the construction company for $53,000,

Page 461

and a conveyance made to its treasurer in trust. Afterwards the property was conveyed by the treasurer to the Delaware County Railroad Company, an Iowa corporation created and organized for the purpose of taking the conveyance and holding the property. This new corporation was composed of substantially the same stockholders as the construction company.

On the 6th of April, 1874, an affidavit was made and filed in the said by the attorney of the construction company, to the effect 'that personal service of original notice in said suit cannot be made upon the defendants, J. Edgar Thompson and William Dennison, trustees of certain bondholders of said railroad, within the State of Iowa, and they are non-residents of said State of Iowa.' The next day a supplemental petition was filed in the cause, as follows:——

'And now comes the plaintiff in this suit and states that since the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the sixth day of February, A.D. 1874, a decree has been rendered by this court against the Davenport and St. Paul Railroad Company, a copy a said decree being hereto annexed, and made a part of this supplemental petition, by which judgment was rendered against said railroad company in favor of said plaintiff for the sum of $51,930.54, besides costs of suit, and the mechanic's lien claimed in the original petition in this suit was established as claimed in said petition.

'Wherefore plaintiff asks that the remaining defendants be foreclosed of all rights of redensption of the property described in said original petition; that said lien be established against the remaining defendants in said suit; that it be declared paramount to all claims of said defendant, and that plaintiff have such other and further relief as may be equitable.'

Notice to these defendants of the pendency of the original and supplemental petitions was published in the 'Delhi Monitor,' a newspaper published weekly at Delhi, Delaware County, four successive weeks, commencing April 9 and ending April 30, requiring them to appear and answer before the 19th of May then next, or default would be entered against them, and judgment and decree rendered as prayed for. On the 22d of May, proof of the publication of this notice having been made, a decree was entered on default, granting the relief asked for, and foreclosing the defendants, Thompson and Dennison,

Page 462

'from all right of redemption of, in, or to the said property, and every part thereof,' and declaring that the rights of the construction company were 'superior and paramount to any and all claims or rights of said defendants to the same or any part thereof.' At the same time the cause was dismissed as to the defendant Lucius Howard. The Davenport Railway Construction Company never...

To continue reading

Request your trial
253 practice notes
  • Smith v. Sperling, No. 316
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1957
    ...really places them, and then may determine the jurisdictional question in view of this alignment. (Citing the In re Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 25 L.Ed. 593, and other cases.) If this rule should be applied it would leave the parties here where the pleader has arranged them. It would doubt......
  • Pan Atlantic Group, Inc. v. Republic Ins. Co., No. 94 CIV. 7724 (DLC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 10 Febrero 1995
    ...As the Supreme Court has stated in construing the phrase "before trial" in connection with the 1875 removal provision in Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 25 L.Ed. 593 (1879), "to allow a party to experiment on his case in the State court, and, if he met with unexpected difficulties, stop the pr......
  • George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 8 Octubre 1935
    ...Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 S. Ct. 799, 800, 29 L. Ed. 962; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L. Ed. 355; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 25 L. Ed. 593; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Pechner, supra; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206, 26 S. Ct. 161, 50 L. Ed. 441, 4 Ann. C......
  • Smith v. Sperling, Civ. No. 9005.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 16 Diciembre 1953
    ...placed on different sides of the matter in dispute according to the facts." Removal Cases, Meyer v. Delaware R. Construction Co., 1879, 100 U.S. 457, 469, 25 L.Ed. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed in City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, supra: "These familiar doctrines governing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
257 cases
  • Smith v. Sperling, No. 316
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1957
    ...really places them, and then may determine the jurisdictional question in view of this alignment. (Citing the In re Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 25 L.Ed. 593, and other cases.) If this rule should be applied it would leave the parties here where the pleader has arranged them. It would doubt......
  • Pan Atlantic Group, Inc. v. Republic Ins. Co., No. 94 CIV. 7724 (DLC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 10 Febrero 1995
    ...As the Supreme Court has stated in construing the phrase "before trial" in connection with the 1875 removal provision in Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 25 L.Ed. 593 (1879), "to allow a party to experiment on his case in the State court, and, if he met with unexpected difficulties, stop the pr......
  • George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 8 Octubre 1935
    ...Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 S. Ct. 799, 800, 29 L. Ed. 962; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L. Ed. 355; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 25 L. Ed. 593; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Pechner, supra; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206, 26 S. Ct. 161, 50 L. Ed. 441, 4 Ann. C......
  • Smith v. Sperling, Civ. No. 9005.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 16 Diciembre 1953
    ...placed on different sides of the matter in dispute according to the facts." Removal Cases, Meyer v. Delaware R. Construction Co., 1879, 100 U.S. 457, 469, 25 L.Ed. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed in City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, supra: "These familiar doctrines governing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 Nbr. 2, October 2021
    • 1 Octubre 2021
    ...of the scholarly debate). (63.) At least one Justice of the Supreme Court has expressly noted this reality. See The Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 480 (1875) (Bradley, J., concurring in the judgment) (noting that the object of the Constitution's grant of diversity jurisdiction "would be defea......

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