Southern Pac. Co. v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 26 February 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 168 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. <I>v.</I> HARRISON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Colorado county; GEORGE McCORMICK, Judge.
Action by R. H. Harrison against the Southern Pacific Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Brown & Dunn, for appellant. Foard, Thompson & Townsend, for appellee.
Appellee instituted this suit to recover of appellant a moneyed judgment exceeding $2,000, exclusive of interest. Plaintiff's original petition was filed on the 29th of June, 1887. Defendant was served with citation on the 2d day of July, 1887. The term of the court to which the citation was returnable, began September 6, 1887. Plaintiff's original petition alleged that he was a resident of Colorado county, Texas, and that the defendant was a private corporation chartered by virtue of the laws of the state of Kentucky. On September 6, 1887, the defendant filed its petition for the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court, and at the same time filed its bond, properly conditioned, and with two sureties, which was approved by the clerk of the court. The petition for removal states that at the time it was filed, and at the time the suit was begun, the plaintiff was a citizen and resident of the state of Texas; that the defendant was a citizen and resident of the state of Kentucky; and that the matters in dispute exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $2,000. Afterwards, on the 19th day of September, 1887, plaintiff filed an amended original petition, in which he states "that he is unable to state where said defendant corporation was chartered," and does not state where defendant resides, but charges that it is a railway corporation, and as such owns and operates lines of railway in the state of Texas; that it has an office in the state of Texas, as required by law, and a local agent, naming him, in Colorado county. Plaintiff filed objections to the removal of the cause upon the following grounds: (1) Because, before the beginning of this term of the court, the attorneys of both parties had agreed that the cause should stand continued at the approaching term, which agreement was consent on defendant's part to the jurisdiction of the state court. (2) Because plaintiff, by alleging in his amended petition his want of knowledge of the place of incorporation of the defendant, had abandoned his allegation that it was in the state of Kentucky. (3) Because, under his allegations that the defendant owned and operated lines of railroad in Texas, had an office in the state of Texas, and a local agent in Colorado county, the district court had jurisdiction to determine the case. (4) Because, under the constitution and laws of the state of Texas, the defendant, being a railway corporation extending into and through the state of Texas, is required to keep an office in the state, at which it is required to keep its books; and its directors are required to meet annually in said state. (5) Because the petition for removal was not sworn to. On the 30th day of September, 1887, the district court entered in its minutes an order overruling the defendant's petition to remove, and retaining jurisdiction of the cause. At the next term of the district court the cause was tried, and a final judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant assigns that "the court below erred in its judgment of 30th of September, 1887, refusing petition of defendant for removal of said cause to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas, at Galveston, said petition and accompanying bond being in accordance with the provisions of the United States statutes concerning the removal of causes from the state courts, and making a case removable under said statutes." The act of congress of March 3, 1887, provides that any suit pending in a state court between citizens of different states, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000, may be removed into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district, by the defendant or defendants therein being non-residents of that state. The process of making such removal, as defined by the same act, is for the defendant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Werner v. Needham
...and was without authority to proceed further. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 93 Tex. 388, 54 S. W. 381, 55 S. W. 562; S. P. Co. v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168; Weller v. Guajardo, 174 S. W. 673; Wells Fargo Express Co. v. Hale, 175 S. W. 469. Appellee urges that by filing cross-acti......
-
W. P. Carmichael Co. v. Miller
...jury found against both defendants, which negatives the idea of fraudulent joinder. In this connection, see, also, Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168; N. Y., etc., Ry. Co. v. Martin (Civ. App.) 25 S. W. We think the evidence presented an issue of fact which was correctl......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Eastin & Knox
...rule, when the jurisdiction is once lost, it takes the order of the United States court to restore it." See, also, Railway v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168. In view of the record herein, and of these expressions of our own Supreme Court, we conclude that there was no waiver in this ca......
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Nichols
...the jurisdiction, — is conclusive of the question against appellant. Railway Co. v. Whitley, 77 Tex. 126, 13 S. W. 853; Railway Co. v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168. An action, like the present, for debt, will be entertained by our state courts at the instance of a non-resident plaint......