Rome Petroleum & Iron Co. v. Hughes Specialty Well Drilling Co.
Decision Date | 26 May 1904 |
Docket Number | 49. |
Citation | 130 F. 585 |
Parties | ROME PETROLEUM & IRON CO. v. HUGHES SPECIALTY WELL DRILLING CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Dean & Dean, for plaintiff.
J Branham, Denny & Harris and Geo. A. H. Harris, for defendant.
This is a motion to remand. The suit was originally brought in the superior court of Floyd county, Ga., by the Rome Petroleum & Iron Company, a corporation of the state of South Dakota against the Hughes Specialty Well Drilling Company, a corporation of the state of South Carolina. The defendant has by proper proceedings removed the case into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northwestern Division of the Northern District of Georgia. Neither of the parties are citizens or residents of the state of Georgia.
The question is whether under Act Cong. March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552, as corrected by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 508), such a suit is removable. This depends upon the construction to be given certain clauses in the first and second sections of that act. In the beginning of the first section it is provided:
'That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, * * * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states.'
In the latter part of the first section it is provided:
'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, 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.'
The second section of the act, so far as material here, provides that:
In Wilson v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (C.C.) 34 F. 561, Mr. Justice Field and Circuit Judge Sawyer expressly stated that the views announced in Yuba v. Mining Co. were erroneous. In the opinion by Mr. Justice Field this is said:
Afterward, in the opinion, this occurs:
.' In Fales v. Chicago, etc., Railroad Co., cited by Justice Field, Judge Shiras, delivering the opinion, says in this connection:
And again in the same opinion:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... Co. v. Insurance Co. (C.C.) 108 F. 451; Rome ... Petroleum & Iron Co. v. Hughes S. Co. (C.C.) ... 'Accordingly, ... it is now well settled that, where the parties are citizens ... ...
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Garnett
... ... for the reason, as well as others, that it made no diminution ... for ... Case (C. C.), 108 F. 451; Rome ... Petroleum & Iron Co. Case (C. C.), 130 F ... ...
-
Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss
... ... plaintiff as well as that of the defendant is requisite to ... v. Insurance Cos ... (C.C.) 108 F. 452; Rome Petroleum Co. v. Hughes ... (C.C.) 130 F. 585; ... ...
-
Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co.
... ... Circuit Court of California, as well as the assignments of ... those judgments to the ... Bliss ... (C.C.) 144 F. 446; Rome Petroleum & Iron Co. v ... Hughes Specialty l Drilling Co. (C.C.) 130 F. 585; ... Duncan v. Associated ... ...