Title Guaranty Surety Company of Scranton v. State of Idaho Allen, No. 815

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation36 S.Ct. 345,240 U.S. 136,60 L.Ed. 566
Decision Date21 February 1916
Docket NumberNo. 815
PartiesTITLE GUARANTY & SURETY COMPANY OF SCRANTON, Pennsylvania, a Corporation, and Vernon W. Platt, Plffs. in Err., v. STATE OF IDAHO to and for Use and Benefit of O. W. ALLEN et al

240 U.S. 136
36 S.Ct. 345
60 L.Ed. 566
TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY COMPANY OF SCRANTON, Pennsylvania, a Corporation, and Vernon W. Platt, Plffs. in Err.,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO to and for Use and Benefit of O. W. ALLEN et al.

No. 815.
Submitted January 24, 1916.
Decided February 21, 1916.

Messrs. Samuel H. Hays, John F. Nugent, and Pasco B. Carter for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Joseph H. Peterson, Attorney General of Idaho, and Messrs. Paris Martin and William E. Cameron for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 137-138 intentionally omitted]

Page 139

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

The case is before us on a motion to dismiss or affirm. The action of the court below which it is sought to review affirmed a judgment of the trial court entered on the verdict of a jury in a suit brought by the state for the use and benefit of O. W. Allen and two hundred and eighteen other named depositors of the Boise State Bank against Platt, a state bank commissioner, and the surety on his bond, for losses alleged to have been suffered by each of the individuals named as the result of alleged neglect of official duty imposed by the state law upon the bank commissioner. The wrong relied upon was his alleged misconduct in not closing the doors of the bank, and permitting it to continue business after he had discovered, as the result of an official examination, that the bank was hopelessly insolvent. The bill as a first cause of action fully set out the facts and stated the legal grounds relied upon to establish the loss and right of O. W. Allen to recover, and separate causes of action were then stated in favor of each of the two hundred and eighteen other depositors. There was an application to remove the case to the district court of the United States on the ground of diverse citizenship, the depositors named being citizens of Idaho, and Platt, the bank commissioner, being then a resident of California, and the Surety Company of Pennsylvania, which application was denied. After issue joined there was a trial before a jury and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the state, and against the defendants, 'on each and every cause of action set forth in the complaint herein, to and for the use and benefit of each of the parties named in each of the separate causes of action set forth in plaintiff's complaint.' And it was conformably adjudged 'that the said plaintiff do have and recover of and from the said defendants . . . for the

Page 140

use and benefit of each of the following-named parties, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • Kansas State University v. Prince, No. 09-4112-SAC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • December 8, 2009
    ...diversity jurisdiction, because the statute requires a suit between citizens of different states. Title Guaranty Co. v. Page 1294 Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 Fraudulent joinder Defendants invoke an exception to the above rule, contending that KSU is a fraudulently j......
  • Allen v. Clark, No. 8158Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 29, 1938
    ...collection only and added to plaintiff's demand); Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Idaho, Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Allen, 1916, 240 U.S. 136, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 (claims of depositors of a bank, suing through the state, not large enough, separately, to confer jurisdiction)......
  • State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co., Civ. No. H-78-455.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • May 31, 1979
    ...simultaneously with respect to any single element of its monetary claim. Cf. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Idaho ex rel. Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140-41, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 Connecticut seeks four types of monetary awards. The basic claim is for recovery of the alleged unlawful over......
  • Zahn v. International Paper Company 8212 888, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1973
    ...the plaintiff.' 4. Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 S.Ct. 217, 60 L.Ed. 469 (1916); Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 (1916); Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 596, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60 L.Ed. 817 (1916); Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243, 244......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • Kansas State University v. Prince, No. 09-4112-SAC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • December 8, 2009
    ...diversity jurisdiction, because the statute requires a suit between citizens of different states. Title Guaranty Co. v. Page 1294 Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 Fraudulent joinder Defendants invoke an exception to the above rule, contending that KSU is a fraudulently j......
  • Allen v. Clark, No. 8158Y.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 29, 1938
    ...collection only and added to plaintiff's demand); Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Idaho, Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Allen, 1916, 240 U.S. 136, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 (claims of depositors of a bank, suing through the state, not large enough, separately, to confer jurisdiction)......
  • State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co., Civ. No. H-78-455.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • May 31, 1979
    ...simultaneously with respect to any single element of its monetary claim. Cf. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Idaho ex rel. Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140-41, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 Connecticut seeks four types of monetary awards. The basic claim is for recovery of the alleged unlawful over......
  • Zahn v. International Paper Company 8212 888, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1973
    ...the plaintiff.' 4. Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 S.Ct. 217, 60 L.Ed. 469 (1916); Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566 (1916); Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 596, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60 L.Ed. 817 (1916); Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243, 244......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT