Rowland v. Sellers, Civ. A. No. 2054.
Decision Date | 07 April 1953 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2054. |
Citation | 111 F. Supp. 5 |
Parties | ROWLAND v. SELLERS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Friar, Lockett & Mahood, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, H. H. McCampbell, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.
Defendants, Kraft Foods Company and Larue G. Sellers, have moved to remand this case to the Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee.
Originally the action was commenced in the state court against Kraft Foods, there being diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and that defendant. Prior to pleading, defendant removed the cause to this court.
Defendant then filed a third-party complaint against Theodore M. Hill, the person with whom plaintiff was riding as a guest at the time the Hill automobile collided with a truck of Kraft Foods, which was being operated by Sellers.
While diversity was lost as between plaintiff on the one hand and Kraft and Hill on the other, defendants do not claim that the third-party action defeated jurisdiction of this court, for the reason that the third-party complaint should be treated as ancillary to the main case.
Plaintiff then amended her complaint to include Sellers and Hill as defendants, these two defendants, along with plaintiff, being citizens of Tennessee.
The action, as commenced, was removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (1). But had the action in its present form been commenced in the state court, it would not have been removable, because of lack of diversity.
The question for determination at this time is whether this court has been deprived of jurisdiction by amendment to the complaint.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1448, by implication, requires that the answer to this question be in the affirmative. That section is as follows:
Hill and Sellers were not made defendants until after removal. Both of them, acting in concert, or either or them alone, had a right to move to remand. Sellers alone exercised the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Fibreboard Products
...5; Cummings v. Riley Stoker Corp., D.C.W.D.Mo., 6 F.R.D. 5; Schindler v. Wabash Ry. Co., D.C.W.D.Mo., 84 F.Supp. 319; Rowland v. Sellers, D.C. E.D.Tenn., 111 F.Supp. 5; and Heintz v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.S.D.Cal., 112 F.Supp. 199. To the contrary is Blum v. Postal Telegraph, D.C.W.D.Pa.,......
-
Wallace v. Knapp-Monarch Company, 15439.
...v. Bond Stores, Inc., D.C.W.D.Mo.1945, 4 F.R.D. 319; Schindler v. Wabash R. Co., D.C.W.D. Mo.1949, 84 F.Supp. 319; Rowland v. Sellers, D.C.E.D.Tenn.1953, 111 F.Supp. 5, is that here the leave to amend was denied while in the cited cases it was granted. There is no inherent right of a plaint......
-
Harper Financial Corp. v. Hanson Oil Corp.
...Pearl Assurance Co., 153 F.Supp. 558 (N.D.Calif.1957), Heintz v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 112 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Calif.1953), Rowland v. Sellers, 111 F.Supp. 5 (E.D.Tenn.1953), Schindler v. Wabash R. Co., 84 F.Supp. 319 (W.D.Mo.1949), Galbraith v. Bond Stores, 4 F.R.D. 319 The result reached might......
-
Sawyer v. EF Drew & Co.
...111 F. Supp. 1 ... E. F. DREW & CO., Inc ... Civ. No. 984 ... United States District Court D. New Jersey ... April 7, ... ...