Tiffany v. Wilce

• Decision Date: 19 March 1888
• Citation: 34 F. 230
• Parties: TIFFANY v. WILCE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

34 F. 230

TIFFANY v. WILCE.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

March 19, 1888

McAlvoy & Grant, (Edgar Terhune, of counsel,) for plaintiff.

Ramsdell & Benedict, for defendant.

SEVERENS J.

This case being brought on for trial, a question arises upon the jurisdiction of the court,-- the defendant being a citizen of another state. The facts appearing upon the record are that the suit was originally brought in the circuit court of the state for the county of Manistee, by the plaintiff, who is a citizen of Michigan, against the defendant, who is a citizen of Illinois; and that the defendant, upon a petition showing this diversity of citizenship, and the additional requisite conditions, together with the giving of the proper bond procured the removal of the cause into this court. The petition was filed, and the removal had, since the enactment of the law of March 3, 1887, defining the jurisdiction of this court in original and removed causes. The same question was presented in the case of Manley v. Olney, 32 F 708, the facts being the same; but as the case was remanded upon another ground, it was not necessary to pass on this point. As is known to the profession, the decisions upon it are not harmonious. Upon a careful study, after the law of 1887 was passed, entered upon with a purpose of ascertaining what, upon comparison and reconcilement of its various provisions, the law had effected relative to the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, my impression of it was that where jurisdiction was vested in the court upon the ground of the different citizenship of the plaintiff and defendant, suit might be brought in the district of either of the parties. The construction given to the act by the circuit court in the Ninth circuit was, however, to the contrary. County of Yuba v. Mining Co., 32 F. 183. It was there held that the act only authorized cognizance of the case when it was brought in the district where the defendant resided; and, as the law only permits removal when the case is one in which the suit might have been brought originally in the federal court, it would follow that, when the defendant in the state court was a non-resident, the case could not be removed. That case was decided by a very able court, and the decision being concurred in by a justice of the supreme court and the circuit and district judges, is entitled to the highest respect. The construction there given to the act was a very rigid one, and, it is obvious would curtail the jurisdiction of the circuit court in a very serious manner. The courts of the United States in the Second, Seventh, and Eighth circuits have not acquiesced in that construction, but have held notwithstanding it, that in such cases the suit may be brought in either the plaintiff's or defendant's district. Railroad Co v. Railroad Co., 33 F....