Waterman v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1912
• Citation: 199 F. 667
• Parties: WATERMAN v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

199 F. 667

WATERMAN v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

October 25, 1912

George Whitefield Betts, of New York City, for plaintiff.

McCarter & English, of Newark, N.J., for defendant.

RELLSTAB District Judge.

This suit was removed into this court from the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey. The plaintiff is the assignee of a number of claims against the defendant. He is a citizen and resident of such state, but none of his assignors is. The defendant is a corporation of the state of Virginia, and not an inhabitant or resident of the state of New Jersey.

The right to remove depends upon the construction to be given to sections 24 (granting original jurisdiction), 28 (limiting the causes that may be removed), and 51 (prescribing the court where suit is to be brought) of the act entitled 'An act to codify, revise and amend the laws relating to the judiciary,' approved March 3, 1911 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. 1911, pp. 128, 135, 140, 150), which, so far as pertinent to the question here raised, provide:

Section 24. That--

'the District Courts shall have original jurisdiction as follows First. Of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, * * * where the matter in controversy exceeds exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of three thousand dollars, and * * * is between citizens of different states. * * * No District Court shall have cognizance of any suit (except upon foreign bills of exchange) to recover upon any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover upon said note or other chose in action if no assignment had been made.' Section 28. That any--

'suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the District Courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by this title, and which are now pending or which may hereafter be brought, in any state court, may be removed into the District Court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being nonresidents of that state.'

Section 51. That--

'no civil suit shall be brought in any District Court against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.'

Reading these sections together-- the only way the legislative intent can be ascertained-- it is apparent, first, that no cause may be removed that might not have been...