Rouse v. Hornsby
Decision Date | 23 March 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 706,706 |
Citation | 161 U.S. 588,16 S.Ct. 610,40 L.Ed. 817 |
Parties | ROUSE v. HORNSBY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
James Hagerman and T. N. Sedgwick, for plaintiff in error.
Nelson Case, for defendant in error.
The Mercantile Trust Company, a corporation of New York, filed its bill against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, a corporation of Kansas, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, for the foreclosure of certain mortgages, and Eddy and Cross were appointed receivers, upon whose decease Rouse was substituted.
Under a general order, to which he refers, but which is not given in the record, Hornsby filed a petition of intervention in that suit, seeking damages for injuries inflicted through the negligence of the receivers in the operation of the road. To this petition the defendants interposed a demurrer upon the ground that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was sustained, and the petition dismissed, whereupon the case was carried to the circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit, the judgment reversed, and the case remanded. Hornsby v. Eddy, 12 U. S App. 404, 5 C. C. A. 560, and 56 Fed. 461. Thereupon defendants answered on the merits, and the intervener replied. Defendants moved the court for a reference to a master, 'which motion,' the record states, 'to refer the claim of John E. Hornsby against them as set forth in the intervening petition of said Hornsby and the issues joined thereon to a master,' was overruled. A jury was then impaneled on motion of the intervener, a trial had, and verdict returned, whereupon the court entered an order in these words, after setting out the verdict:
The petition of intervention, the answer, and the various orders were all entitled in the case of The Mercantile Trust Company of New York v. The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company et al. From the final order of the court defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat Bank of San Francisco
...of which the receivers were acting in virtue of authority conferred on them as officers of the Alaska court. Rouse v. Hornsby, 16 S. Ct. 610, 161 U. S. 588, 590, 40 L. Ed. 817. As all this is apparent from the face of the bill, and as the removal is not challenged here, we think the presump......
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Foreman
...S.Ct. 1024, 44 L.Ed. 337. See, also Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 12 S.Ct. 905, 36 L.Ed. 829; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U.S. 588, 16 S.Ct. 610, 40 L.Ed. 817; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S. Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055; Jewett v. Whitcomb, C.C., 69 F. 41......
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Foreman
... ... 723, 44 L.Ed. 337, 20 S.Ct. 1024. See, also, Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 12 ... S.Ct. 905, 36 L.Ed. 829; Rouse v. Hornsby, ... 161 U.S. 588, 16 S.Ct. 610, 40 L.Ed. 817; C., R ... I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 ... S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed ... ...
-
Smithson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company
...of nonresidence, and because the action was to recover against them as receivers of a federal court. Texas v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U.S. 588; White v. Ewing, 159 U.S. 36. The cause of action as between plaintiff and the receivers was separable in the sense of the removal ......