Southern Pac. Co. v. Waite
| Citation | 279 F. 171 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1922 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. WAITE et al. |
W. I Gilbert, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Ward Chapman and L. M. Chapman, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
BLEDSOE District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This case lies in very narrow compass. Both reason and authority could perhaps be cited in support of the proposition that this court, while it has before it for determination the question of the removability of a case from a state court may enjoin the parties from attempting to proceed with the case in the state court; this upon the theory that, if this court upon removal does possess jurisdiction of the cause that jurisdiction may not be invaded by harmful proceedings in the state court, and that, pending a determination by this court of the removability of the cause, this court will protect the party who is asserting its jurisdiction from being harried or embarrassed by proceedings in a court with respect to which the claim is then being made that it is without jurisdiction. Therefore if, pending such determination, application had been made to restrain the parties from proceeding with the cause in the state court until this court had adjudicated the controverted question of its own jurisdiction to hear and determine the main cause appropriate action to that end would have been taken. This court, however, has determined that with respect to the cause of action sought to be removed, it has and at all times had no jurisdiction; in other words, that upon the face of the papers the cause was not a removable one. The state court made a similar determination, and, believing that it possessed jurisdiction and no stay being asked of it, proceeded regularly to adjudge the matters therein pending.
I cannot bring myself to believe that either upon principle or authority there exists now any just cause to stay the enforcement of the judgment secured by the parties in the state court. Such action could be taken only upon the theory that at all times subsequent to the filing of the petition and bond in the state court, asking for the removal to this court of the cause there pending, the state court was without jurisdiction in the premises. This I would conceive to be the case, had it been the fact that the petition and bond, considered in connection with the other papers then on file, demonstrated the removability of the cause. It has been held by this court, however, and its judgment under the law is controlling in the matter, that no such removability existed. That being the fact, no removable cause being before the court, no petition for removal of such cause could operate to oust the jurisdiction of the court, and in that wise it never lost jurisdiction of the controversy.
These views are sustained, in my judgment, by Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 245, 25 Sup.Ct. 251, 253, 49 L.Ed. 462. In that opinion (196 U.S.at page 245, 25 Sup.Ct. 253, 49 L.Ed. 462) it is said that--
'It is well settled that if, upon the face of the record, including the petition for removal, a suit does not appear to be a removable one, then the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made.'
That is the precise situation presented here. So in Stone v South Carolina, 117 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Casualty Ins Co v. Stevens
...court, the clear import of the decision is that the proceedings are valid if the case was not in fact removable. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Waite, D.C., 279 F. 171; Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, D.C., 279 F. 606, 607; First National Bank v. Bridge Co., 9 Fed.Cas. 88, No. The ru......
-
Crenshaw v. Southern Power Co.
... ... application for removal had been made." Madisonville ... v. Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 25 S.Ct. 251, 49 L.Ed. 462; ... So. [124 S.C. 150] Pac. Co. v. Waite (D. C.) 279 F ... 171; Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U.S. 183, 24 L.Ed. 427 ... "In ... other words, having acquired ... ...
-
State v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 24278.
...to be well settled in accordance with appellant's contention. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Chappell (D. C.) 206 F. 688; Southern Pac. Co. v. Waite (D. C.) 279 F. 171; Queensboro National Bank v. Kelly (D. C.) 15 F. 395; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 25 S......
-
Marsh v. Tillie Lewis Foods, Inc.
...court, the clear import of the decision is that the proceedings are valid if the case was not in fact removable. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Waite, D.C., 279 F. 171; Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, D.C., 279 F. 606, 607; First National Bank of Manhattan v. King Wrought Iron Bridge......