Scheideler v. Jones

Decision Date15 July 1952
CitationScheideler v. Jones, 105 F.Supp. 726 (S.D. N.Y. 1952)
PartiesSCHEIDELER et al. v. JONES.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Neil P. Cullom, New York City, for plaintiffs, appearing specially for the purpose of this motion.

Boyle & Reeves, New York City, for defendant.Thomas F. Boyle, New York City, of counsel.

McGOHEY, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiffs to remand the suit to the New York Supreme Court, from which it was removed here on the defendant's petition.

There are nine plaintiffs.Five are residents of New York; one is a resident of New Jersey, three are residents of Connecticut where the defendant also resides.

Remand is demanded on the ground that the "claims or causes of action" of the New York and New Jersey plaintiffs are not "separate and independent" from those of the Connecticut plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the defendant at various times made seven separate statements of and concerning the plaintiffs; that each statement was defamatory of each plaintiff; that each statement damaged each plaintiff in the sum of $50,000; that each plaintiff is entitled to recover total damages in the sum of $350,000.

As Judge Learned Hand has said: "a reputation, like a face, is the symbol of its possessor and creator".1Thus a claim of one plaintiff for damages to his reputation is so peculiarly personal as to be clearly "separate and independent" from the similar claims of each of the other plaintiffs.The suit, therefore, was properly removed to this Court under § 1441(c),Title 28 U.S. C.A.

The circumstances that there will...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation v. Taylor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 26, 1965
    ...cert. denied, 355 U.S. 907, 78 S.Ct. 334, 2 L.Ed. 2d 262 (1957); Reynolds v. Bryant, 107 F.Supp. 704 (S.D.N.Y.1952); Scheideler v. Jones, 105 F.Supp. 726 (S.D.N.Y. 1952). 30 341 U.S. at 10 n. 3, 71 S.Ct. 534. 31 Finn v. American Fire & Cas. Co., 207 F.2d 113, 116 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. deni......
  • Seymour v. AS Abell Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • January 25, 1983
    ...Gay v. Williams, 486 F.Supp. 12 (D.Alaska 1979); Schultz v. Newsweek, 7 Med.L.Rep. 2537 (E.D.Mich. 1976). See also Scheideler v. Jones, 105 F.Supp. 726 (S.D.N.Y.1952); Spriggs v. Associated Press, 55 F.Supp. 385 (D.Wyo.1944). Lewis v. Time, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 455 (E.D.Cal. 1979), relied on by ......
  • Tenenbaum v. WALTER E. HELLER & COMPANY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 12, 1970
    ...denied, 322 U.S. 739, 64 S.Ct. 1055, 88 L.Ed. 1572 (1944). 15 See Reynolds v. Bryant, 107 F.Supp. 704 (S.D.N.Y.1952); Scheideler v. Jones, 105 F.Supp. 726 (S.D.N.Y.1952); Hammer v. British Type Investors, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 497 (S.D.N.Y.1933). See generally American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, ......
  • Martin v. Continental Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 3, 1996
  • Get Started for Free