Young v. Main, No. 9963.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGARDNER and SANBORN, Circuit , and DEWEY
Citation72 F.2d 640
Docket NumberNo. 9963.
Decision Date08 August 1934
PartiesYOUNG v. MAIN et al.

72 F.2d 640 (1934)

YOUNG
v.
MAIN et al.

No. 9963.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

August 8, 1934.


72 F.2d 641

Mart M. Monaghan, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

E. A. Johnson, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa (George C. Claassen, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on the brief), for appellees.

Before GARDNER and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and DEWEY, District Judge.

DEWEY, District Judge.

Jurisdiction of the court is invoked on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the question for determination is whether the declaration, designated as the petition of the plaintiff, shows on its face an amount in controversy in excess of $3,000.

The petition, in so far as it bears upon the question raised, states the diversity of citizenship of the parties. That the plaintiff seeks a money judgment against the defendants for the sum of $17,950, and "that during all of the times herein mentioned, and for some time prior thereto, the above named defendants, and each of them, and one N. Y. Hokanson, as plaintiff is informed and believes, conceived and formulated and agreed among themselves to, and they did, conspire and collaborate together in executing the fraudulent plan and scheme hereinafter specifically described, of selling such vending machines and such merchandise at highly exorbitant and unreasonable prices, and of inducing inexperienced and unwary people, including this plaintiff, to purchase said machines and merchandise, and to enter into contracts for the purchase thereof with said defendant, W. F. Main, under one or other of his aliases above specified, by making, and causing and inducing to be made to said prospective purchasers of such machines and merchandise, including this plaintiff, false, fraudulent and untrue statements and representations both of past events and past and existing facts and estimates and opinions commingled with representations of past and existing facts, and promises and assurances made and given with the present existing intention at the time of giving and making said promises and assurances of not keeping or performing said promises or assurances, as more specifically detailed in setting up the transactions between plaintiff and said defendants hereinafter, and said defendants, and each of them, and said N. Y. Hokanson so conspired and collaborated together thus to cheat and defraud such prospective purchasers of said machines, including this plaintiff, over a widespread territory and in many different states."

That as a part of the fraudulent plan, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants made certain false and fraudulent representations, as follows: That enormous profits were guaranteed to purchasers; that a surety company bond would be furnished by the National Surety Company; that every person who had bought the machines had made an average net profit of more than $2 per month on such machines; that, unless a profit of 120 per cent. was made from the operation of the machines, the defendants would repurchase them at the full purchase price; that plaintiff would be given the exclusive privilege of operating said machines in the city of St. Paul, Minn.

That each of the representations were false, fraudulent, and untrue, and were well known by the defendants and each of them to be false and untrue when made. That the plaintiff relied upon the representations and believed them to be true, and acted upon them and was induced to enter into a contract of purchase and to pay to the defendant W. F. Main $2,891. The plaintiff has, however, duly rescinded by his own act the aforesaid contract of purchase with W. F. Main.

That said false representations were made maliciously, fraudulently, willfully, wantonly, and in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been damaged by the matters alleged in the sum of $2,891, actual damages, and $15,000 exemplary damages, and he asks for judgment against the defendants in the sum of $17,891.

A motion was duly filed to dismiss the complaint on the ground the petition on its face failed to show a jurisdictional amount in controversy. The trial court found that the petition was one for the recovery of the purchase price upon prompt rescission of the

72 F.2d 642
contract; that exemplary damages were not a proper element of damages; that the matter in controversy was less than $3,000; and dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction

The questions for determination are, first, does the cause of action sound in tort, or is it an action in implied assumpsit for the return of the purchase price? and, second, if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...the amount necessary for federal court jurisdiction. Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society, supra; Young v. Main, 8 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 640. Plaintiff's complaint here asks for compensatory and exemplary damages in the aggregate of $10,000 and therefore may be dismissed for lack of juris......
  • Dixon v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, No. 4-66 Civ. 65.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • October 19, 1967
    ...S.Ct. 5, 88 L.Ed. 15 (1943); Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n, 325 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1963); 276 F. Supp. 104 Young v. Main, 72 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1934) (dicta); 1 Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 0.934 (2d ed. 1964). But such punitive damages may not be added to actual damages wh......
  • Trullinger v. Rosenblum, Civ. No. 2842.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • October 22, 1954
    ...must affirmatively appear. See, e. g. Le Mieux Bros. v. Tremont Lumber Co., 5 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 387; Young v. Main, 8 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 640; Yocum v. Parker, supra. The removal jurisdiction of United States District Courts is statutory, and it has been held that in the removal statutes......
  • Martin v. Ampco Sys. Parking, CIVIL NO. 12-00598 SOM/RLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • October 24, 2013
    ...necessary for federal jurisdiction." Davenport v. Mut. Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963) (citing Young v. Main, 72 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1934); see also Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001) ("It is well established that punitive damages are part......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...the amount necessary for federal court jurisdiction. Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society, supra; Young v. Main, 8 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 640. Plaintiff's complaint here asks for compensatory and exemplary damages in the aggregate of $10,000 and therefore may be dismissed for lack of juris......
  • Dixon v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, No. 4-66 Civ. 65.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • October 19, 1967
    ...S.Ct. 5, 88 L.Ed. 15 (1943); Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n, 325 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1963); 276 F. Supp. 104 Young v. Main, 72 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1934) (dicta); 1 Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 0.934 (2d ed. 1964). But such punitive damages may not be added to actual damages wh......
  • Trullinger v. Rosenblum, Civ. No. 2842.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • October 22, 1954
    ...must affirmatively appear. See, e. g. Le Mieux Bros. v. Tremont Lumber Co., 5 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 387; Young v. Main, 8 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 640; Yocum v. Parker, supra. The removal jurisdiction of United States District Courts is statutory, and it has been held that in the removal statutes......
  • Martin v. Ampco Sys. Parking, CIVIL NO. 12-00598 SOM/RLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • October 24, 2013
    ...necessary for federal jurisdiction." Davenport v. Mut. Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n, 325 F.2d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 1963) (citing Young v. Main, 72 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1934); see also Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001) ("It is well established that punitive damages are part......
  • 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