Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Company

Citation359 F.2d 954
Decision Date10 May 1966
Docket NumberNo. 22569.,22569.
PartiesJoe M. SLAUGHTER, Appellant, v. TOYE BROS. YELLOW CAB COMPANY, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Edgar N. Quillin, Arabi, La., Roland J. Sternfels, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Lansing L. Mitchell, Wm. W. Messersmith, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

JONES, Circuit Judge:

The appellant, Joe M. Slaughter, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana claiming damages of $50,000 for personal injuries resulting from a collision in New Orleans, Louisiana, between an automobile driven by the appellant and a taxicab of the appellee, Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. In the complaint it was alleged that the appellant was a citizen of Mississippi and that the appellee was a citizen of Louisiana. Federal jurisdiction was asserted on the ground of diversity of citizenship. The appellee denied that there was diversity of citizenship, that the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000, and that it was negligent. It asserted that the sole cause of the collision was the negligence of the appellant. The jury, on interrogatories submitted by the court, found that the appellee's driver was negligent, that his negligence was a proximate cause of the appellant's injuries, that the appellant was not negligent. The jury found that the appellant had sustained damages in the amount of $2,200. The appellee filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that diversity of citizenship was not proved, that the claim of damages in jurisdictional amount was not made in good faith, that there was no evidence of the negligence of appellee's driver, that the evidence showed appellant's negligence caused the accident, and that damages were excessive. The district court granted the motion on the ground that the appellant had failed to sustain the burden of proving diversity of citizenship. The court entered judgment for the appellee dismissing the complaint. Having decided the case on the diversity issue, the court had no occasion to pass on the other matters raised by the appellee's motion.

The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in them included findings that the suit was filed on June 20, 1962, that sometime in May or June 1962 the appellant moved from one address in New Orleans to another a block away, "where he lived when the suit was filed," that at the time of the trial the appellant was living in a suburb of New Orleans, and that he had lived in Louisiana continuously from 1961 to the date of the trial, which was on January 5-6, 1965. In its conclusions of law the court determined that the appellant had actually been residing continuously in Louisiana for more than a year prior to the accident up to and including the date of the trial, a period of four years, that he had moved to Louisiana in 1961 and resided there to the date of the trial in 1965. Although these recitals are out of context, it is clearly apparent from the record that the district court gave consideration and weight to the evidence as to the appellant's residence during the period between the bringing of the suit and the time of the trial. The appellant makes three specifications of error which present two legal issues for our determination. The first of these asserts as a legal principle the proposition that the establishment by a plaintiff of a prior domicile shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show a change of domicile such as would defeat diversity jurisdiction. The other question is based upon the action of the district court in considering facts and circumstances occurring subsequent to the commencement of the action.

The appellant testified that he was born in Mississippi, that before coming to New Orleans he had lived at Laurel, Mississippi, with his mother, that he voted in Mississippi in 1960 but not thereafter, that he was not registered to vote in Louisiana, that he had a Mississippi driver's license and that his home was with his mother in Mississippi. This testimony, urges the appellant, established the fact of a domicile and citizenship in Mississippi. He urges that, upon this fact being shown, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant to prove that it has changed. The appellant cites, in support of its contention, Stine v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • Coury v. Prot, s. 94-20084
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 19, 1996
    ......Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1986); Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 359 F.2d 954, 956 (5th . ... moved to France in 1991 to manage his bottle water company, though he also moved his wife and children and their ......
  • Scott v. Communications Services, Inc., Civ.A. No. H-90-2502.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • April 5, 1991
    ...Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir.1974); Gaines v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 434 F.2d 52, 54 (5th Cir.1970); Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 359 F.2d 954, 956 (5th Cir.1966). A narrow exception to the requirement of diversity at both commencement and removal exists. A suit against bot......
  • De La Rosa v. Reliable, Inc., CIV 15–0283 JB/KK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • June 27, 2015
    ...Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) ; Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 359 F.2d 954, 956 (5th Cir.1966) ; McDaniel v. Loya, 304 F.R.D. 617, 625 (D.N.M.2015) (Browning, J.)). They maintain that, because the Court cannot ......
  • Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 10, 1980
    ...subsequent change of domicile by one of the parties. See e. g., Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298 (3rd Cir. 1972); Slaughter v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab, 359 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1966); Lyons v. Weltmer, 174 F.2d 473 (4th Cir. 1949). As Professors Wright and Miller have concluded, "this rule seems......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT