Stuart v. Bank of Staplehurst
Decision Date | 09 February 1899 |
Docket Number | 8611 |
Citation | 78 N.W. 298,57 Neb. 569 |
Parties | A. P. S. STUART v. BANK OF STAPLEHURST |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR from the district court of Seward county. Tried below before BATES, J. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
C. C Flansburg, for plaintiff in error:
It was the duty of the state court, upon the filing of the petition and bond, to proceed no further in the cause.
The question of jurisdiction belongs to the federal court and must be determined there exclusively ; and the fact that other than federal questions may arise in the course of the litigation cannot withdraw the question from the jurisdiction of the federal court.
As to what is a federal question see: Leather Manufacturers Bank v. Cooper, 120 U.S. 778; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U.S. 421; St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co., 68 F. 13; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. [U. S.] 357; Van Allen v. Atchison, C. & P. R. Co., 3 F. 547.
As to what the federal question involved see: National Exchange Bank v. Peters, 44 F. 13; Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. [U. S.] 520; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U.S. 747; Ripley v. Sampson, 10 Pick. [Mass.] 370; Stone v. Wiggin, 5 Met. [Mass.] 316; Gray v. Coffin, 9 Cush. [Mass. ] 192; Cole v. City of Muscatine, 14 Ia. 296.
A petition in the nature of a common-law action of deceit for damages on the ground of false representations is insufficient unless it shows the representations were made to the person complaining. (Smithers v. Calvert, 44 Ind. 242.)
When parties severally liable for distinct torts are joined as defendants in a single action it is good ground of demurrer. (Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 3 Wend. [N. Y.] 130; Pomeroy, Remedies & Remedial Rights secs. 308, 309.)
George W. Lowley, Pound & Burr, Roscoe Pound, and Biggs & Thomas, contra:
Assignments of error not discussed in the brief are waived.
Question not raised by proper assignments of error will be disregarded.
The district court had jurisdiction and the case was not removable. (Tennessee v. Union & Planters Bank, 152 U.S. 454; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. [U. S.] 69; Gold-Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 201.)
The proceedings of a state court, after a petition and bond for a removal which is refused by the state court, depend upon the fact whether the cause is in fact removable or not. (Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430; Carson v. Hyatt, 118 U.S. 279; Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U.S. 513; Crehore v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 131 U.S. 240; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U.S. 556.)
A published false statement of the condition of a bank is actionable though not addressed to the individual defrauded.
The defendant in error instituted this action in the district court of Seward county and alleged for cause that the plaintiff in error and parties who were co-defendants were at the times of the occurrences upon which the suit was predicated, directors of a national bank, in the business which its name indicates, in the city of Lincoln, and at various stated times made and published, or caused them to be published, in newspapers of general circulation in said city, and in the state of Nebraska, certain false statements of fact of and concerning the bank of which they were directors, and its matters of business, and which related to its solvency and reliability; that such statements were made and published with a knowledge of their falsity and with an intent to mislead and deceive the public and the defendant in error, and that the statements accomplished or served the purpose for which they were intended; that the defendant in error was thereby induced to deposit money to a large amount, stated in the petition, in the said bank, which was lost by reason of the insolvency and failure of the said bank. The commencement of the action was of date February 25, 1895. On March 29, 1895, the plaintiff in error and his co-defendants filed an application or petition for the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court for the district of Nebraska. Said petition was accompanied by the requisite bond. On April 1, 1895, there was filed in the state court for the plaintiff in error and each of his co-defendants a demurrer to the petition. These were on April 5, 1895, overruled and the application for removal was denied.
There appears in the record the following, as setting forth what was done in the cause in the federal court:
May 6, 1895, answers were filed in the state court for all parties sued except the plaintiff in error. July 9, 1895, and during the pendency of a term of the state court, a judgment by default was rendered therein against the plaintiff in error, and the case is presented for him to this court by error proceeding. The petition in error is as follows:
It is first argued for plaintiff in error that as the jurisdiction of the state court in the cause ceased as soon as the application for removal was filed, it could not further proceed therein, and its subsequent acts were void. In section 2 of the act of March 3, 1887, as corrected in 1888 (see 25 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 434, ch. 866), amendatory of the act of 1875, it is provided: "That any suit of civil nature, at law or in equity, arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, of which the circuit courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section, which may now be pending or which may hereafter be brought in any state court may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein to the circuit court of the United States for the proper district." The act further provides that the application shall be by petition,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stuart v. Bank of Staplehurst
...57 Neb. 56978 N.W. 298STUARTv.BANK OF STAPLEHURST.Supreme Court of Nebraska.Feb. 9, Syllabus by the Court. 1. In an action in a state court wherein a removal to a United States court is sought under the provisions of section 2 of the act of congress of March 3, 1887, as corrected in 1888 (s......
-
Ayres v. Duggan
...Monroe v. Reid, 46 Neb. 316, 64 N. W. 983;King v. Murphy, 49 Neb. 670, 68 N. W. 1029;Whipple v. Fowler, 41 Neb. 675, 60 N. W. 15; [78 N.W. 298]Scroggin v. Johnston, 45 Neb. 714, 64 N. W. 236. There is in the record sufficient competent evidence to sustain the judgment, and it is accordingly......
-
Ayres v. Duggan
... ... in behalf of the party appealing. (Stump v. Richardson ... County Bank, 24 Neb. 522, 39 N.W. 433; Van Etten v ... Kosters, 48 Neb. 152, 66 N.W. 1106; Chase v. Omaha ... ...