Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Eastin Knox
Decision Date | 17 May 1909 |
Docket Number | No. 177,177 |
Citation | 214 U.S. 153,29 S.Ct. 564,53 L.Ed. 946 |
Parties | TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and J. M. Tucker, Plffs. in Err., v. EASTIN & KNOX, a Firm Composed of S. W. Eastin and D. L. Knox, and St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This action was instituted by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the Texas & Pacific Company, and J. M. Tucker, its agent, for wrongfully billing and shipping 712 head of cows and calves via one road, though they were requested to be shipped via another, whereby they were required to go twice as far, and were seriously injured and damaged thereby.
It is alleged in the original petition that plaintiffs in the action, defendants here, were residents of the county of Jack, state of Texas; that Tucker resided in the county of Palo Pinto in said state, and that the Texas & Pacific Company 'is a body corporate, duly incorporated under the Federal statutes, with an office and station in the counties of Palo Pinto and Parker, in the state of Texas.'
The Texas & Pacific Company filed an answer, and, at the same time, filed a petition and bond to remove the cases to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Texas, sitting at Fort Worth. The petition alleged as the ground of removal that Tucker was improperly and wrongfully joined with the company for the sole and only purpose of preventing it from removing the case to the United States circuit court. That the suit against the company was a suit arising under the laws of the United States, and more especially under the law of the United States constituting the charter of the company, under which it was incorporated. Tucker adopted the statements of the petition and joined in the application for removal. The application was denied, and an exception was entered to the ruling. The Texas & Pacific Company, protesting against the right of the court to hear and determine the suit, filed its amended original answer, among other defenses alleging that 'it carried and delivered the cattle to Paris, Texas, safely and carefully on reasonable time,' and further alleging that the St. Louis & San Francisco Company was duly incorporated and operated its line of railway in Lamar county, Texas, and had a local agent at Paris, and that most of the damage complained of by plaintiff (defendant in error) occurred on the line of that road. The Texas & Pacific Company asked that the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company be made a party defendant, and that citation be served on it; that it be required to answer in the case, and that, if plaintiff should recover against the Texas & Pacific Company, the latter have judgment against the St. Louis & San Francisco Company for all such damages as were caused by it.
Subsequently, a second amended original answer was filed by the Texas & Pacific Company, in which it enlarged its defenses, and, in what it called a 'special and separate answer,' averred its careful transportation of the cattle, and again averred the negligence of the St. Louis & San Francisco Company, and that, but for such negligence, the damages of which plaintiffs complain would not have occurred. The prayer of the answer was as follows:
A citation was issued in accordance with this prayer, and the St. Louis & San Francisco Company was summoned to appear 'to answer the said amended answer of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, filed as aforesaid on the 7th day of April, A. D. 1904.' The citation was duly served, together with certified copies of plaintiff's original petition and the amended answer of the Texas & Pacific Company, as directed by the citation. The St. Louis & San Francisco Company appeared in the action. In what is called its first amended original answer it demurred 'generally to the answer and cross action' of the Texas & Pacific Company, on the ground that the same failed to show a cause of action. The answer also denied all the allegations of the 'said pleadings of the Texas & Pacific Company,' set up other defenses and alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grand River Dam Authority v. Going
...115 U.S. 1, 5 S.Ct. 1113, 29 L.Ed. 319; Butler v. National Home, 144 U.S. 64, 12 S.Ct. 581, 36 L.Ed. 346; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Eastin & Knox, 214 U.S. 153, 29 S.Ct. 564, 53 L.Ed. 946. Third. The question as to whether or not an inter-state river or lake is navigable or non-navigable arises ......
-
In re Green River Drainage Area
...is sought on the ground that the suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Eastin & Knox, 214 U.S. 153, 29 S.Ct. 564, 53 L.Ed. 946; Chicago R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S.Ct. 854, 44 L.Ed. 1055; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441; s......
-
Whiteaker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...138 U.S. 298; Railroad v. Herman, 187 U.S. 63; Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239; Railroad v. McCabe, 213 U.S. 207; Railroad v. Eastin, 214 U.S. 153; Railroad v. Stone, 70 Kan. 708; Hickman Railroad, 151 Mo. 644; Bank v. Fritzlen, 75 Kan. 479; Donovan v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 169 F. 36......
-
Crenshaw v. Southern Power Co.
... ... Southern Power Company and the Arcade Cotton Mills. From an ... order ... 430, 53 L.Ed. 765; ... T. & P. R. Co. v. Eastin, 214 U.S. 153, 29 S.Ct ... 564, 53 L.Ed. 946; ... ...