Sloane v. Anderson
Citation | 6 S.Ct. 730,29 L.Ed. 899,117 U.S. 275 |
Parties | SLOANE and others v. ANDERSON. Filed |
Decision Date | 15 March 1886 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
J. M. Flower, for plaintiff in error.
M. P. Wing and J. H. Ashton, for defendants in error.
This is a writ of error brought under the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470, c. 137,) to reverse an order of the circuit court remanding a suit which had been removed from the state court. The suit was brought by Anderson, the defendant in error, a citizen of Wisconsin, against John Sloane, William D. Sloane, Henry F. Sloane, Thomas C. Sloane, Walter W. Law, Alexander Wright, and Charles L. Watson, partners under the name of W. & J. Sloane, all citizens of New York; John V Farwell, Charles B. Farwell, William D. Farwell, and John L. Harmon, partners under the name of J. V. Farwell & Co., citizens of Illinois; Curtis H. Remy, an attorney at law, and a citizen of Illinois; and Angus Cameron, Joseph W. Losey, and Charles W. Bunn, partners doing a general law business under the name of Cameron, Losey & Bunn, citizens of Wisconsin. The complaint states that in September, 1881, Anderson was a merchant in good credit, doing business at La Crosse, Wisconsin, and worth at least $15,000 over his debts; that on the twenty-eighth of September he was indebted to W. & J. Sloane in the sum of $3,378.28, of which only $363.03 was then due, and to J. V. Farwell & Co. in the sum of $1,757,08, of which only $439.27 was due; that on that day the defendants Cameron, Losey & Bunn and Curtis H. Remy, by the order and direction of W. & J. Sloane, caused a judgment to be entered against him as by confession in the circuit court of La Crosse county for his entire debt to that firm, and by the order and direction of J. V. Farwell & Co., another judgment for his entire debt to that firm; and that each of these judgments was irregular and void, the court being without jurisdiction in the premises. The complaint then proceeds as follows:
Separate answers were filed by Cameron, Losey & Bunn, W. & J. Sloane, and J. V. Farwell & Co. Each of these answers was substantially a copy of the others, and the same defenses were set up in all. Among other things it was alleged that in making the levies the firms of W. & J. Sloane and J. V. Farwell & Co. acted separately, each on its own account, and not jointly, 'and that there was consequently a misjoinder of parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Abernathy
... ... setting up separate defenses. Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 ... U.S. 41 [5 Sup.Ct. 1034, 1161, 29 L.Ed. 331]; Sloane v ... Anderson, 117 U.S. 275, 278 [6 Sup.Ct. 730, 29 L.Ed ... In ... Doremus v. Root (C.C.) 94 F. 760, the following ... principles ... ...
-
State of Washington v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...State Tel. Co. v. Blake, 105 Md. 570, 66 Atl. 631; Heffelfinger v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. (C. C.) 140 Fed. 75; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275, 6 Sup. Ct. 730, 29 L. Ed. 899; Rosenthal v. Coates, 148 U. S. 142, 13 Sup. Ct. 576, 37 L. Ed. 399; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co......
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... Ide, 114 U.S. 52, 5 S.Ct. 735, 29 L.Ed. 63; Pirie v ... Tvedt, 115 U.S. 41, 5 S.Ct. 1034, 1161, 29 L.Ed. 331; ... Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U.S. 275, 6 S.Ct. 730, 29 ... L.Ed. 899; Little v. Giles, 118 U.S. 596, 7 S.Ct ... 32, 30 L.Ed. 269; Thorn Wire Hedge Co. v ... ...
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co. v. American Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J.
... ... 63; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U.S. 41, ... 5 S.Ct. 1034, 1161, 29 L.Ed. 331; Core v. Vinal, 117 ... U.S. 347, 6 S.Ct. 767, 29 L.Ed. 912; Sloane v ... Anderson, 117 U.S. 275, 6 S.Ct. 730, 29 L.Ed. 899), the ... requisite separability does not exist ... If they ... are ... ...