Stewart v. Patton
| Decision Date | 23 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 57.,57. |
| Citation | 32 F. Supp. 675 |
| Parties | STEWART v. PATTON, Sheriff, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Joe C. Davis, of Lexington, Tenn., and Victor Woerner, of Jackson, Tenn., for plaintiff.
L. L. Fonville, W. N. Key, and Homer H. Waldrop, all of Jackson, Tenn., and W. R. Landrum, of Trenton, Tenn., for defendants.
The complaint in this civil action was filed on March 11, 1940, by a non-resident who qualified as administrator of a decedent who was a resident of Tennessee in this judicial district of the United States at the time of his death, against a sheriff of one of the counties of this district and the sureties on his official bond. The action seeks to recover $50,000 damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate through the alleged wrongful act of the defendant sheriff and his deputies in unlawfully and negligently imprisoning the decedent, Elbert Jowers, in a small steel cage in jail, while Jowers was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and was not in condition to be left alone with a companion who was also drunk in the same cell, which was almost hermetically sealed.
It appears from the complaint that during the night of their confinement, plaintiff's intestate and his companion were suffocated to death in their cell, in which a mattress caught fire, causing the cell to become "a furnace where the air was rapidly consumed, so that the said Jowers, after futile efforts to attract attention, was overcome with the gas and fumes and died."
The complaint charges that the defendant sheriff was guilty of "gross negligence in the manner in which he incarcerated the said Jowers and kept him in the jail; by placing him in a portion of the jail apart from the other prisoners; by placing him in a cell that was almost hermetically sealed; by not searching the said Jowers and his companion to see if they had matches or other things which might be injurious to them in their drunken condition, and by failing to have proper inspection from time to time of the quarters in which Jowers and his companion were confined in order to see that they were not injuring themselves or in need of attention, with the result that they were suffocated as above set forth."
The defendants filed, on April 3, 1940, their joint and several answer in which twenty defenses were set up, of which the last two go to the jurisdiction of this court. The case was promptly set for trial; and, in the course of the trial to a jury on April 22, 1940, the Court, after hearing the testimony of the administrator, ruled that the full proof of the plaintiff in support of his position that this court has jurisdiction of the controversy should be first adduced, before any evidence is received upon the merits of the case. In addition to the administrator, Walter Stewart, a resident of Blytheville, Arkansas, the plaintiff introduced as witnesses, W. T. Jowers, father of the decedent, Elbert Jowers, Judge August Wilde, Judge of the County Court of Madison County, Tennessee, and Mrs. Opal Jowers, widow of the decedent. A certified copy of the record of the proceedings of the County Court of Madison County, in which Walter Stewart was appointed administrator of the estate of Elbert Jowers, deceased, was introduced and received in evidence. The order appointing the administrator recited that the cause was heard upon the sworn petition of W. T. Jowers; that it appeared to the court that Elbert Jowers, about 29 years of age, died intestate in Madison County, Tennessee, on or about November 23, 1939; "and that he was a resident of said county and state on the date of his death, and that he left no estate except that which is exempt to his widow and children, and a claim for his wrongful death; that he left a widow, Opal Jowers, about 25 years of age, and two children, Marie Jowers, about nine years of age, and Bobby Jowers, about seven years of age, surviving him as his only heirs and distributees; that the surviving widow of the said Elbert Jowers, and the petitioner, W. T. Jowers, who is the father of the said Elbert Jowers, deceased, desire that Walter Stewart, who resides in or near the town of Blytheville, Arkansas, be appointed administrator of the estate of the said Elbert Jowers, and that the said Walter Stewart is willing and desires to act as such administrator."
Upon the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence introduced by the plaintiff on the question of jurisdiction, the defendants obtained leave to amend their answer by averring that "the court is without jurisdiction in this cause for the reason that the administrator in whose name the suit was brought was collusively made such for the sole purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the court", and that such action was a "subterfuge" to oust the state court of its lawful jurisdiction, and that the real parties in interest are all residents of Madison County, Tennessee.
The non-resident administrator, who lives in Mississippi County, Arkansas, testified that he is not related to any of the Jowers family; that many years ago he had lived in Lexington, Tennessee, where he was acquainted with W. T. Jowers, father of the deceased; that he came over to Tennessee in response to a message from Mr. Joe Davis, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in this cause, and qualified as administrator under the direction of the attorney; that the attorneys were already in the case when he "went into it"; that he left to the lawyers the entire handling of the administration of the estate; that he performed what he was called upon to do, which was to authorize the filing of the suit in his name, as administrator; that there are no assets of the estate; that he has done nothing toward paying funeral expenses of the intestate; that he knows nothing concerning the death of his intestate, except from hearsay; and that he has made no personal effort toward preparation for the trial, leaving the matter entirely to the lawyers in the case.
The attorneys for plaintiff frankly admit that the sole purpose of securing Mr. Walter Stewart, a non-resident of Tennessee, to qualify as administrator of the estate of decedent was to enable this action to be brought in this federal trial court on the basis of the jurisdiction resting on diversity of citizenship.
It has been long established law that if a suitor presents a justifiable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Company v. Burton
...829, 7 L.Ed.2d 784, rehearing denied, 369 U.S. 857, 82 S.Ct. 932, 8 L.Ed.2d 16; Harrison v. Love, 81 F.2d 115 (C.A.6); Stewart v. Patton, 32 F.Supp. 675, 677 (W.D.Tenn.); County of Todd v. Loegering, 297 F.2d 470 (C.A. 8); Minnehaha County, S. D. v. Kelley, 150 F.2d 356 (C.A.8); Boeing Airp......
-
Jaffe v. Philadelphia & Western R. Co.
...in this type of action qualifies if he "presents a justifiable demand and the requisite diversity of citizenship". Stewart v. Patton, D.C.W.D.Tenn., 32 F.Supp. 675, 676. In Goff's Administrator v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., C.C.W.D.Va., 36 F. 299, another such decision, speaking of the administra......
-
Breeden v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...For additional authorities discussing and sustaining the foregoing views, see Harrison v. Love, 6 Cir., 81 F.2d 115, and Stewart v. Patton, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 675. It appears upon the face of the record that the Probate Court appointed the named administrator and the defendant Railroad Compan......
-
Michigan Trust Co. v. Chaffee, Civil No. 173.
...on the question of diversity of citizenship — that being true irrespective of the citizenship of the decedent. Stewart v. Patton et al., D.C.Tenn.1940, 32 F.Supp. 675. A bar to jurisdiction of United States Courts nevertheless appears. Judicial Code 24(1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1), in part provi......