Shearing v. Trumbull
| Decision Date | 08 July 1896 |
| Citation | 75 F. 33 |
| Parties | SHEARING v. TRUMBULL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
James H. Brown, for plaintiff.
Pattison Edsall & Hobson, for defendants.
Olive D. Shearing brought suit in the district court of Arapahoe county against Frank Trumbull, receiver, and the Denver Consolidated Tramway Company to recover damages resulting to her from the death of her husband, caused by the negligent acts of the defendants. The suit was removed into this court by Trumbull, receiver, alleging that it arises under the constitution and laws of the United States. An order was made on the 13th day of May last, remanding the case, on the ground that the court has not jurisdiction of it. Trumbull now moves to vacate the order and reinstate the case. He was appointed receiver of the Union Pacific, Denver & Gulf Railway Company in this court, and if the action had been brought against him alone, there would be no doubt as to his right to remove it. But the suit is against the Denver Consolidated Tramway Company, a Colorado corporation, which has no right of removal, and the question is whether all parties defendant must have such right, in order that it may be maintained by any of them. It is said that the case arises under the constitution and laws of the United States, but it is not of that character in the sense that there is any federal question to be decided. Whenever a question arises in a case as to the proper construction or effect of the constitution or some law or treaty of the United States, a federal court has jurisdiction of the cause, without regard to the citizenship of the parties. Water Co. v Keyes, 96 U.S. 199. A suit by or against a federal corporation, or by or against a receiver appointed in a federal court, is not of that class. In such case, the suitor has a personal standing in a federal court, in virtue of the authority under which he proceeds. A receiver appointed in a federal court is personally qualified to sue or be sued in such court, because of his appointment. He has the personal standing of a citizen of another state, when the ground of jurisdiction is the diverse citizenship of the parties. In an action of tort against several, all defendants must have the requisite qualifications in order that the suit may be removed to a federal court. Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U.S 41, 5 Sup.Ct. 1034, 1161. In this instance, the defendant Trumbull, as an officer of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat Bank of San Francisco
...of the general equity jurisdiction of federal courts, confident that this court would upon occasion uphold the limitation, Shearing v. Trumbull (C. C.) 75 F. 33; Marrs v. Felton (C. C.) 102 F. 775; Chesapeake, Ohio & S. W. R. R. Co.'s Receivers v. Smith, 42 S. W. 538, 101 Ky. 707. This cour......
-
Marrs v. Felton
...they could not be brought within the provisions of the removal act merely on account of the federal appointment of the receiver. Shearing v. Trumbull, 75 F. 33. seems to me, for the reasons presently to be stated, that the supreme court must be regarded as quite certain to hold that such ca......
-
Empire Min. Co. v. Propeller Tow-Boat Co. of Savannah
...would have said so in terms and not have left it to inference. And evidently a court of the United States acted upon this in Shearing v. Trumbull (C.C.) 75 F. 33. But it may be said that when the order was made to remand case forthwith, which order was filed here and a certified copy of it ......
-
Ausbrooks v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... State court and subsequent proceedings had therein. And while ... it was apparently assumed in Shearing v. Trumbull ... (C.C.) 75 F. 33, that a remanding order might be ... subsequently vacated, there was no discussion of the question ... or ... ...