Yulee v. Vose
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WAITE |
| Citation | 99 U.S. 539,25 L.Ed. 355 |
| Parties | YULEE v. VOSE |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
ERROR to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
This was a suit commenced Feb. 16, 1868, in the Supreme Court of New York, by Francis Vose against the Florida Railroad Company, David L. Yulee, Edward N. Dickerson, Marshall O. Roberts, and Isaac K. Roberts. The prayer of the complaint was that Edward N. Dickerson, Marshall O. Roberts, and all other associates of Edward N. Dickerson, who, when discovered, should be made parties, might be required to pay a judgment which had been rendered in favor of Vose against the Florida Railroad Company in the Supreme Court of New York, on which there was due $136,534.63, and interest from Feb. 1, 1867; that Dickerson, Yulee, Marshall O. and Isaac K. Roberts, and their associates, who it was alleged held all the franchises
Page 540
and property of the company, might be required to hold the income of the railroad, in trust for the payment of the amount of the judgment; that certain securities alleged to be in the hands of Yulee might be also subjected to the payment of the debt; and for other relief. It further appeared from the averments in the complaint that Yulee was liable as indorser on part of the notes on which the judgment was rendered; and this allegation was not denied in his answer, but no judgment was specifically asked against him on that account.
On the trial of the cause, the complaint was dismissed as to all the defendants. This judgment was affirmed in all respects by the Supreme Court in general term; but in the Court of Appeals it was reversed as to Yulee, and the cause remanded for a new trial as to him, on account of his liability as indorser of the notes. As to all the other defendants and all other relief asked there was an affirmance.
On the 5th of June, 1873, after the mandate went down from the Court of Appeals, Yulee filed in the trial court his petition, accompanied by the necessary bond, for the removal of the suit as against him to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, under the act of July 27, 1866, 14 Stat. 306. That statute provides that if in any suit already commenced, or which might thereafter be commenced, in any State court against an alien, or by a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought is or shall be a defendant; and if the suit, so far as it relates to the alien defendant, or to the defendant who is the citizen of a State other than that in which the suit is brought, is one in which there can be a final determination of the controversy so far as it concerns him, without the presence of the other defendants as parties, 'then and in every such case the alien defendant, or the defendant who is a citizen of a State other than that in which the suit is brought, may, at any time before the trial or final hearing of the cause, file a petition for removal of the cause as against him into the next Circuit Court of the United States to be held in the district where the suit is pending, . . . and it shall thereupon be the duty of the State court . . . to proceed no further in the cause as against the defendant
Page 541
so applying for its removal.' The petition for removal set forth, in sufficient form and with sufficient particularity, the citizenship of Vose in New York, and of Yulee in Florida, both then and at the time of the commencement of the suit; but it made no mention of the citizenship of the other defendants. In all other respects the petition met fully the requirements of the statute. The accompanying bond was also correct in form, and no objection was made to its sufficiency. Notice of an intention to make the application for the removal was served on the attorneys of Vose on the 17th of April, 1873. Accompanying the petition was an affidavit of Dickerson, under date of June 4, 1873, to the effect that he, Dickerson, and the defendants Roberts were citizens of the State of New York.
The cause came on for trial June 9, 1873, and a jury was sworn, when the counsel for Yulee called the attention of the court to the proceedings which had been taken for the removal, and moved to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. This motion was overruled, and the trial proceeded, resulting in a verdict, by order of the court, against Yulee for $168,589.30, on which judgment was rendered. Exception to the ruling of the court on the question of removal was duly taken. Upon this state of the record, the case was taken by proper proceedings to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment was affirmed, on the ground that the suit was not removable under the act of 1866 when the petition for removal was filed, because the defendant Yulee was then the only defendant. This ruling of the Court of Appeals is now assigned for error.
Mr. Edward N. Dickerson and Mr. William M. Merrick for the plaintiff in error.
All the essential facts which entitled Yulee to a removal being presented by the petition, and the requisite bond filed, there was no jurisdiction in the State court to try and determine the suit. That jurisdiction was absolutely ousted by the petition, and any further action there was coram non judice. The petition is ipso facto a removal of that cause. Any dispute as to the truth of its averments must be tried not in the State court, but in the Circuit Court of the United States, on a motion to remand the cause or otherwise, as that court may direct. If this were not the law, the right of removal might
Page 542
be defeated by the State court, upon its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Self v. General Motors Corp., No. 75-1572
...relevant considerations in determining removal issues raised by the elimination of resident defendants from an action. In Yulee v. Vose, 99 U.S. 539, 25 L.Ed. 355 (1878), a judgment was entered against both the resident and nonresident defendants. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed as to ......
-
George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
...is thus shown on the face of the record. Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 S. Ct. 799, 800, 29 L. Ed. 962; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L. Ed. 355; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 25 L. Ed. 593; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Pechner, supra; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 20......
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co v. Am. Ins. Co. Of Newark, (No. 557.)
...v. Mathieson, 190 U. S. 428, 23 S. Ct. 807, 47 L. Ed. 1122; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571, 10 S. Ct. 196, 33 L. Ed. 462; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L Ed. 355; Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U. S. 576, 26 L.. Ed. 1176; Praser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191, 1 S. Ct 171, 27 L. Ed. 131. If the de......
-
Tolbert v. Jackson, No. 8877.
...or personal injuries, in which removal was upheld, and which are illustrative of suits involving a separable controversy: Yulee v. Vose, 99 U.S. 539, 25 L.Ed. 355; Barney v. Latham, 103 U.S. 205, 26 L.Ed. 514; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406, 11 S.Ct. 819, 840, 35 L.Ed. 442;1 Connell v. Smi......
-
George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
...is thus shown on the face of the record. Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 S. Ct. 799, 800, 29 L. Ed. 962; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L. Ed. 355; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 25 L. Ed. 593; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Pechner, supra; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 20......
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co v. Am. Ins. Co. Of Newark, (No. 557.)
...v. Mathieson, 190 U. S. 428, 23 S. Ct. 807, 47 L. Ed. 1122; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571, 10 S. Ct. 196, 33 L. Ed. 462; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L Ed. 355; Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U. S. 576, 26 L.. Ed. 1176; Praser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191, 1 S. Ct 171, 27 L. Ed. 131. If the de......
-
Tolbert v. Jackson, No. 8877.
...or personal injuries, in which removal was upheld, and which are illustrative of suits involving a separable controversy: Yulee v. Vose, 99 U.S. 539, 25 L.Ed. 355; Barney v. Latham, 103 U.S. 205, 26 L.Ed. 514; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406, 11 S.Ct. 819, 840, 35 L.Ed. 442;1 Connell v. Smi......
-
State v. American Surety Co. of New York
...had been made." (Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Chappell, 206 F. 688; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U.S. 183, 24 L.Ed. 427; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U.S. 539, 25 L.Ed. 355; Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 26 L.Ed. 354; Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U.S. 742, 5 S.Ct. 743, 28 L.Ed. 1150; Stone v. South C......