Union Pac Ry Co v. Myers Same v. City of Kansas Same v. Knuth Same v. Harwood Texas Pac Ry Co v. Allister Same v. Kirk Same v. Murphy

Citation5 S.Ct. 1113,115 U.S. 1,29 L.Ed. 319
Decision Date04 May 1885
Docket NumberNo. 797,No. 810,No. 980,No. 610,No. 824,No. 291,No. 461,291,461,810,980,610,797,824
PartiesUNION PAC. RY. CO. v. MYERS. 1 In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. SAME v. CITY OF KANSAS. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missonri. SAME v. KNUTH. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. SAME v. HARWOOD. 2 In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. TEXAS & PAC. RY. CO. v. McALLISTER. SAME v. KIRK. SAME v. MURPHY. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from page 2 intentionally omitted] John F. Dillon, for plaintiffs in error, in Nos. 291, 461, 810, and 980.

W. Hallett Phillips, for defendants in error, in Nos. 291, 461, 810, and 980; and W. H. Munger, for defendants in error, in No. 810.

W. D. Davidge, for plaintiffs in error, in Nos. 610, 797, and 824.

W. H. Phillips and ,A. H. Garland, for defendants in error, in Nos. 610, 797, and 824.

BRADLEY, J.

The principal question involved in these cases is whether a suit brought in a state court against a corporation of the United States may be removed by such corporation into the circuit court of the United States, on the ground of its being a corporation organized under a law of the United States. The plaintiff in error in four of the cases is the Union Pacific Railway Company, and in the other three cases is the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. They contend that they have such a right of removal, either under the removal act of July 27, 1868, (15 St. 227,) now forming section 640 of the Revised Statutes, or under the act of March 3, 1875, entitled 'An act to determine the jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from state courts, and for other purposes,' (18 St. 470,) or both. Whether the corporations of the United States, organized under acts of congress, have o have not this right of removal is the principal question in these cases.

The suits were all brought in state courts against the said corporations severally. In the first case, Myers, a switchman at Armstrong, in Kansa, sued the company for an injury alleged to have been sustained by him through the carelessness of the company or its agents, in the construction of the coupling of its cars. The company filed an answer, and at the same time a petition for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, and the proper bond required by the law. The petition for removal stated that the petitioner was a corporation other than a banking corporation, and organized under a law of the United States, namely, an act of congress entitled 'An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes,' approved July 1, 1862; and that, in accordance with said act, and the acts amendatory and supplemental thereto, the petitioner had exercised and did exercise its corporate functions and powers. The petition then proceeded as follows:

'That February 1, 1880, pursuant to section 16 of the said act of July 1, 1862, and of the act of July 2, 1864, the Kansas Pacific Railway Company, a corporation created by the territorial legislature of Kansas, and organized under the laws of said territory, and the Denver Pacific Railway & Telegraph Company, a corporation created and organized under the laws of the territory of Colorado, both of which said companies are mentioned in said acts of congress, and their said railroads by said acts made a part of the Union Pacific Railroad system, were, by agreement, consolidated with the Union Pacific Railroad Company. Your petitioner and said consolidated company, by agreement, as by said acts suthorized, assumed, and adopted the name of the Union Pacific Railway Company, which company consolidated, assumed, took, and from thenceforth had, and has, by virtue of said agreement of consolidation, possession and ownership of all the railroads and other property, real and personal, of said constituent companies, and has and does operate and manage the same under and by authority of said acts of congress, and is governed and controlled by said acts, and is to all intents and purposes, and in fact, a corporation under the laws of the United States. That the plaintiff, Abram Myers, has sued your petitioner, the Union Pacific Rail way Company, process in this suit having been served on its agents, and your petitioner has appeared thereto and filed its answer; that the matter and amount in this suit above entitled exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars; that your petitioner has a defense to said action arising under and by virtue of the aforesaid laws of the United States; that said suit has not been tried, nor has it been ready for or stood for trial, and the present is the first term of the court at which it could have been tried.'

The petition concluded with the proffer of the proper bond, and a prayer for an order of removal, and that the court would proceed no further in the cause. The bond was approved and an order of removal was made. On filing the record in the circuit court of the United States, a motion was made to remand the cause to the state court, and it was remanded accordingly, the circuit judge holding that the suit was not one arising 'under the constitution and laws of the United States,' within the meaning of the act of congress of March 3, 1875, and that a suit cannot be removed from a state to a federal court upon the sole ground that it is a suit by or against a corporation organized under the laws of the United States. To the judgment remainding the cause, the writ of error was sued out in this court.

The next case, Union Pac. R. Co. v. City of Kansas, was a proceeding instituted by the commo council of said city, by ordinance passed in April, 1880, for widening a street through the depot grounds of the company, and thereby taking a portion of its said grounds and the property of many other persons. A jury was summoned in November, 1880, before the mayor, to inquire and find the value of the property taken for the street, and to assess the amount upon surrounding property benefited thereby. On December 12, 1880, this jury found the value of the company's property taken equal to $7,305, and assessed, as benefits, upon the remaining property of the company the sum of $12,325 towards paying the damages for widening the street. The verdict was confirmed by the mayor and common council February 25, 1881. The laws of Missouri give to any party, dissatisfied with the award of the jury in such cases, an appeal to the circuit court of Jackson county, (in which Kansas City is situated,) and the Union Pacific Railway Company and some other dissatisfied parties filed separate appeals, and the proceedings were certified to the said court, where the said appeals were by the law directed to be tried 'in all respects, and subject to the same rules and the same law as other trials had in the circuit court, and the same record thereof made and kept.' After the case was certified to the circuit court of Jackson county, the company in due time, April, 1881, filed a petition for removal of the case to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Missouri. The petition, as in the case of Myers, set out the incorporation of the company, and the consolidation of the three companies before mentioned under the acts of congress, before referred to, by the name of the 'Union Pacific Railway Company.' The petition then proceeds to state as follows:

'And your petitioner, by agreement of said constituent companies, succeeded to, had, and possessed all the rights and privileges and property, real and personal, which was of said constituent companies, or either of them, and that at the time of commencement of this proceeding your petitioner had owned, and possessed, exclusive of all other rights and claims, the tract of land described in said proceeding, as follows,' (it then describes the land of the company taken for the street, and then states as follows:) 'and that the same had been acquired by the Kansas Pacific Railway Company for depot and other railway purposes by authority of law, and that your petitioner held said land for said purposes, and was occupying the same in part for such purposes at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, and was about to appropriate the residue thereof to such use, the increase of business of your petitioner making it imperatively necessary that it should be so occupied. Your petitioner distinctly avers that it is a corporation, not banking, organized under the laws of the United States; that it holds and possesses said property pursuant to such laws; that it has a defense in this action arising under and by virtue of the laws of the United States hereinbefore referred to; and your petitioner desires that said cause may be removed into said circuit court of the United States for trial, pursuant to section 640 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Your petitioner further states that the matter in dispute in this cause, in which your petitioner is interested, exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs; and further, that this suit has not been tried, but is now pending for trial on appeal in the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri.'

The petition concluded with the ordinary proffer of a bond and prayer forremoval of the case, etc., and an order of removal was made by the state courlt. Motion was then made to the circuit court of the United States to remand the cause, and that court, after holding the motion under consideration for some time, gave judgment to remand, which judgment is brought here by writ of error. Before rendering judgment the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
228 cases
  • Klein v. City of Louisville
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • May 22, 1928
    ... ... in that name and to adopt a seal and alter same at pleasure." ...         Section 3 ... Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U.S. 641, 656 (10 S. Ct. 965, 34 L ... ...
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • August 10, 1912
    ... ... immunities under the same provisions of the Constitution and ... under the ... State court in the Northern District of Texas against the ... Texas and Pacific Railway, a ... Removal, Sec. 216, p. 356; State of Kansas v. Bradley ... (C.C.) 26 F. 289, 292 (Mr ... ...
  • National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1949
    ...III. The rule of the Bank of the United States case, reiterated in The Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, (Union Pacific R. Co. v. Myers) 115 U.S. 1, 5 S.Ct. 1113, 29 L.Ed. 319; Matter of Dunn, 212 U.S. 374, 29 S.Ct. 299, 53 L.Ed. 558; American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlan......
  • Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1959
    ... ... , Jr., and Silas Blake Axtell, New York City, for petitioner ...           Mr ... (Texas & P.R. Co. v. Kirk). 50 The Act of 1875 is ... 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148, are not the same when, as here, what is involved ... Page 381 ... See Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 41 S.Ct ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • FEDERAL COURTS AND TAKINGS LITIGATION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...relief, however, was not awarded against sovereign entities. Brauneis, supra note 31, at 58. (33) See, e.g., Pac. R.R. Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1884) (approving removal of the company's appeal of the amount awarded against a city in an assessment of value and (34) See, e.g., Boom Co.......
  • DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 2, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...a federal court would have had original jurisdiction over a "separable controversy" in the suit). But see Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 23 (1885) (holding in a decision of uncertain scope that a "separate and distinct" controversy subject to federal question jurisdiction was "......

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