Wright v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 12 February 1925
• Citation: 3 F.2d 501
• Parties: WRIGHT v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

3 F.2d 501 (1925)

WRIGHT v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

District Court, M. D. Alabama, N. D., at Montgomery.

February 12, 1925.

Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, Ala., and Wilkerson & Brannen, of Troy, Ala., for plaintiff.

Bradley, Baldwin, All & White and William Douglas Arant, all of Birmingham, Ala., for defendant.

CLAYTON, District Judge.

The plaintiff, a citizen of Alabama, brought this suit in the circuit court of Pike county, Ala., against the defendant, a New York corporation, to recover installments claimed under a policy of insurance issued by the defendant. A copy of such policy is a part of the record before me.

The first and second counts of the complaint are the common counts, for $420 due on the policy of insurance; the third claims the same sum to be due as the first seven installments on a monthly income of $60, which the defendant by the policy agreed to pay over a period of years. The record and the policy show that the total of all of said monthly installments would exceed the sum or value of $3,000.

The summons and complaint was served "on Mrs. Bettie M. Boyd, known to me the sheriff to be the agent of the within named defendant, Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, this the 14th day of March, 1924. W. C. Carroll, Sheriff." It does not seem that whether proper service was made upon the defendant need be considered, although section 9421 of the 1923 Code of Alabama permits service to be made upon any agent of a corporation. However, this is a matter that can be cured, if necessary, by another summons.

Claiming that the aggregate amount of the policy, which exceeds $3,000, determined the amount in controversy, the defendant filed its petition for removal on the ground of diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff's motion to remand is based upon the contention that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $3,000, but is only $420. This presents the important question: Is the sum or value in controversy over $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs? I have not found any case where the exact question as to the jurisdictional amount presented here has been decided, but the controlling principles are well established and must be applied to the facts of the instant case.

It is well settled that it must appear on the face of the complaint, or otherwise from the proof, that the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000. First Nat. Bank v. La. Highway Comm., 264 U. S. 308, 310, 44 S. Ct. 340, 68 L. Ed. 701, and cases cited.

Let us see, under the facts of the instant case, what the object to be gained...