Sullivan v. Barnard
| Decision Date | 17 July 1897 |
| Citation | 81 F. 886 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. BARNARD. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
H. Q Bridges, for plaintiff.
Theodore Sheldon, for defendant.
This is a motion to remand the cause to the state court from which it was removed into this court. The ground for removal is that the amount in controversy is less than $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. To understand this contention, it must be stated that defendant, as the petition alleges, at the time of the institution of the suit in the state court was a receiver appointed by the United States circuit court for the Southern district of the state of Iowa, and also in the United States circuit court for this district; and he was sued as such receiver in the state circuit court for Gentry county, in this district. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff, as employe of the railroad, while being managed and controlled by the receiver. The amount of damages claimed in the petition is $1,999. Such an exact and unusual sum was evidently consented to by plaintiff as the measure of his damages for the purpose, as he conceived, of avoiding the jurisdiction of the United States court. It has been directly held in Carpenter v. Railroad Co., 75 F. 850, that an action against a receiver appointed by a federal circuit court, growing out of the operation of a railroad, is ancillary to the suit in which the receiver was appointed and that such a controversy is cognizable in the United States court, regardless of the citizenship of the parties the nature of the controversy, or the amount involved. This ruling was bottomed upon the proposition established by the supreme court that actions against receivers, in contemplation of law, are actions against the receivership or the funds in the hands of the receiver; that his contracts and negligent acts are official, and not personal; and any judgment against the receiver is payable only out of the funds in his hands. McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U.S. 327, 332, 12 Sup.Ct. 11. In White v. Ewing, 159 U.S. 36, 40, 15 Sup.Ct. 1018, 1019, Mr. Justice Brown said:
'The circuit court obtained jurisdiction over the Cardiff Coal & Iron Company that is, the insolvent company) by the filing of the original creditors' bill by Bosworth, a citizen of Massachusetts, and by the appointment of a receiver; and any suit by or against such receiver, in the course of winding up of such corporation, whether for the collection of its assets or for the defense of its property rights, must be regarded as ancillary to the main suit, and is cognizable in the circuit court, regardless either of the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.'
The suit against the receiver in the case at bar is predicated of his misfeasance or negligence in operating the property intrusted to his care and control. Any judgment recovered against him would be a charge against the estate, and, if paid, would be taken out of the trust funds being administered by the court. It therefore concerns the court itself, which is managing the estate through the receivership, and affects the property in the custody of the court. The plaintiff in this case, just as the plaintiff in the case of Rouse v. Letcher, 156...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrs v. Felton
...his existence as such, and his possession of the assets, to orders of the federal court. Landers v. Felton (C.C.) 73 F. 311; Sullivan v. Barnard (C.C.) 81 F. 886; Lund Railway Co. (C.C.) 78 F. 385; Gableman v. Railway Co. (C.C.) 82 F. 790; Gilmore v. Herrick (C.C.) 93 F. 525. Other circuit ......
-
Pendleton v. Lutz
...in the petition. White v. Ewing, 159 U.S. 36; 1 Desty's Fed. Proc. (9th ed.), p. 446, sec. 96, citing 82 F. 790; 73 F. 311; 61 F. 417; 81 F. 886 and 881; F. 849; 82 F. 241; 69 F. 417. The action of the federal court in seizing all of the assets of the defendant association, by its receivers......
-
Gilmore v. Herrick
... ... Hanford in Carpenter v. Railroad Co., 75 F. 850, ... before Judge Baker in Ray v. Peirce, 81 F. 881, ... before Judge Phillips in Sullivan ... [93 F. 528.] ... v. Barnard, 81 F. 886, and before Judge Thompson in ... Pitkin v. Cowen, 91 F. 599. Judge Hanford held that ... a suit in ... ...
-
Shinney v. North American Savings, Loan & Building Co.
...Ewing, 159 U.S. 36, 15 Sup.Ct. 1018; State of Washington v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 75 F. 333; Carpenter v. Railroad Co., Id. 850; Sullivan v. Barnard, 81 F. 886; Bausman Denny, 73 F. 69. The motion to remand is denied. ...