Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar
Decision Date | 03 October 1904 |
Docket Number | 1,067. |
Citation | 133 F. 113 |
Parties | UTAH-NEVADA CO. v. DE LAMarch |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
This action was commenced March 12, 1902, in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., by the plaintiff to recover of and from the defendant the sum of $3,422,636 alleged to be due and owing upon a certain agreement between Isaac E. Blake and the defendant.
The complainant, among other things, alleges:
Thereafter, on March 26, 1902, the defendant filed a petition is said superior court for the removal of the cause to the United States Circuit Court. It is alleged in this petition:
After the removal of the case the plaintiff moved the Circuit Court to remand the case to the state court 'upon the grounds that the above entitled Circuit Court has no jurisdiction over said cause and the parties thereto, and that said cause was improperly and illegally removed from said superior court to said Circuit Court, for the reason that the plaintiff above named is the sole plaintiff in said cause, and each and both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of states other than the state in which said cause was commenced and were said citizens at the time of the commencement of said action, and that said plaintiff was not, at the time of the commencement of said action, or at any time since, a citizen of said state of California, and that the petition of defendant above named, upon which said cause was removed from said superior court to said Circuit Court, does not state facts or matters or things sufficient to constitute a cause for the removal of said action from said state court to said United States court, nor any cause for the removal of an action from the said state court to the United States court, provided for in the acts of Congress of the United States upon that subject.'
This motion was overruled. Amended complaints and answers thereto were subsequently filed, and the case regularly came on for trial before a jury. Objections were made to the introduction of any evidence as to the agreement between Blake and the defendant, because it was not in writing, and came within the prohibited provisions of the statute of frauds.
The court below, in closing an extended opinion upon the points involved in the objections urged by defendant, said: After several additional offers of proof on the part of 'the plaintiff, the court directed the jury to find a verdict for defendant, which was accordingly done, and a judgment was rendered upon the verdict in favor of defendant for his costs.
It is assigned as error: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelley v. Queeney
..."Such presumption has no relation to the citizenship of individuals as parties to a controversy in their own right." Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar, 9 Cir., 133 F. 113, certiorari denied 199 U. S. 605, 26 S.Ct. 746, 50 L.Ed. 330; Hanchett v. Blair, 9 Cir., 100 F. 817. Regardless of how he sues......
-
U.S. v. Dare, 04-30202.
...Dare's sentence exceeds the Booker limit. See also United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir.1988); Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar, 133 F. 113, 120 (9th Cir.1904) ("[T]he Supreme Court of the United States has since, as well as before, laid down the rules by which we must be guided......
-
Bateman v. Ford Motor Co.
...723c, which defendants have invoked. McNutt v. General Motors Corporation, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Utah-Nevada Co. v. De LaMar, 9 Cir., 133 F. 113. See also Tittle v. General Motors, Dist. of Conn. Jan. 20, 1948, Adm. Interpretative Bulletin, Nov. 18, 1947 — 12 Fed. Reg. ......
-
Southern Pac. R. Co. v. United States
... ... We have had frequent occasion, notably in German ... Savings & Loan Society v. Dormitzer, 116 F. 471, 472, 53 ... C.C.A. 639, and Utah-Nevada Company v. De Lamar (recently ... decided; C.C.A.) 133 F. 113, to call attention to the fact ... that the language as used by the courts in their ... ...