Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 294.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Citation | 58 F. 609 |
| Docket Number | 294. |
| Parties | SHATTUCK v. NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INS. CO. OF LONDON AND EDINBURGH et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1893 |
58 F. 609
SHATTUCK
v.
NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INS. CO. OF LONDON AND EDINBURGH et al.
No. 294.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
October 30, 1893
S. W. Shattuck, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Thomas Bates, (Fred W. Bentley, on the brief,) for defendants in error.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.
CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.
This was an action at law commenced in the district court of Hodgeman county, Kan., on the 3d day of December, 1891, by S.W. Shattuck, Jr., the plaintiff in error, against the North British & Mercantile Insurance Company of London and Edinburgh, the First National Bank of Jetmore, Kan., and Frederick George. The complaint alleged, in substance, that the defendant insurance company verbally promised and agreed with Frederick George to renew a policy of fire insurance for the sum of $2,700 on the latter's stock of merchandise in his storehouse in Jetmore, Kan., from the 14th day of June, 1891, at noon, to the 14th day of June, 1892, at noon; that on the 27th day of June, 1891, the property was destroyed by fire, and that thereafter the assured, Frederick George, assigned in writing to the plaintiff, as collateral security for a promissory note for the sum of $2,232.40, which he owed the plaintiff, his cause of action against the insurance company for its failure and neglect to renew the policy. As to the defendants the First National Bank and Frederick George, the allegation of the complaint was that they and each 'have or claim to have, adversely to said plaintiff, some interest in or lien upon the moneys due said plaintiff' from the defendant. There was [58 F. 610] a prayer for judgment against the insurance company for $7,052.34, the value of the goods destroyed by fire; and, as to the defendants the First National Bank and George, the prayer was that each of them be adjudged to have no interest in or lien upon the moneys due the plaintiff from the defendant. All of the defendants were duly summoned to answer. The defendants the bank and George never appeared to the action, and the plaintiff took no default or order against them. The defendant insurance company appeared in the state court, and removed the suit into the federal court, upon the grounds that the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Kansas, and the defendant insurance company a foreign corporation, chartered by the laws of Great Britain, and a citizen of that kingdom, and that the suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stonybrook Tenants Association, Inc. v. Alpert, Civ. 8604.
...are not required to join in the petition for removal. Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Company, 8 Cir., 1893, 58 F. 609, For purposes of determining whether requisite diversity of citizenship exists, the courts look to the citizenship of the real parties in interest and disr......
-
Wells v. Russellville Anthracite Coal Mining Co.
...103 U.S. 285, 26 L.Ed. 447; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121, 124, 11 Sup.Ct. 966, 35 L.Ed. 657; Shattuck v. North British & Merc. Ins. Co., 58 F. 609, 7 C. C. A. 386. By reference to the complaint we find that it is alleged that the Russellville Company was created and exists under the laws o......
-
Nfc Acquisition, LLC v. Comerica Bank, Case No. 3:08CV2450.
...presence in the action is not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19."); Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co., 58 F. 609, 610 (8th Cir.1893) (noting that nominal or formal parties, being neither necessary nor indispensable, are not required to join in the petition......
-
Bradley v. Maryland Casualty Company, No. 18486.
...Fin. Co., 264 U.S. 182, 189-190, 44 S.Ct. 266, 68 L.Ed. 628, 31 A.L.R. 867 (1924); Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 58 F. 609, 610 (8 Cir. 1893); Nunn v. Feltinton, 294 F.2d 450, 453 (5 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 932, 8 L.Ed.2d 16; Stonybrook Tenants Ass......
-
Stonybrook Tenants Association, Inc. v. Alpert, Civ. 8604.
...are not required to join in the petition for removal. Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Company, 8 Cir., 1893, 58 F. 609, For purposes of determining whether requisite diversity of citizenship exists, the courts look to the citizenship of the real parties in interest and ......
-
Wells v. Russellville Anthracite Coal Mining Co.
...U.S. 285, 26 L.Ed. 447; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121, 124, 11 Sup.Ct. 966, 35 L.Ed. 657; Shattuck v. North British & Merc. Ins. Co., 58 F. 609, 7 C. C. A. 386. By reference to the complaint we find that it is alleged that the Russellville Company was created and exists under the laws o......
-
Nfc Acquisition, LLC v. Comerica Bank, Case No. 3:08CV2450.
...in the action is not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19."); Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co., 58 F. 609, 610 (8th Cir.1893) (noting that nominal or formal parties, being neither necessary nor indispensable, are not required to join in the petition......
-
Bradley v. Maryland Casualty Company, No. 18486.
...Fin. Co., 264 U.S. 182, 189-190, 44 S.Ct. 266, 68 L.Ed. 628, 31 A.L.R. 867 (1924); Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 58 F. 609, 610 (8 Cir. 1893); Nunn v. Feltinton, 294 F.2d 450, 453 (5 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 932, 8 L.Ed.2d 16; Stonybrook Tenants......