Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

considered, irrespective of their nominal attitude, as
plaintiffs or defendants, and such classification should
determine the fact of a removable or non-removable con-
troversy. 60 A., of Wisconsin, sued in equity in the State
court B. of Wisconsin and C. of New York. C. filed a
counter-claim, which raised a separable controversy be-
tween him and A. Held, that the suit was not removable
to the Federal court, the Federal court practice not rec-
ognizing a counter-claim, but only a cross-bill.61 In suit
by city to vacate franchise granted by it, a mortgagee of
the franchise asked to be adınitted as a party, he being a
resident of another State. On his subsequent application
for removal, it was held that there was no separable con.
troversy which was removable.62 Attempt by divorced
woman to enforce alimony out of land of her husband's
heirs, presents no separable, and therefore removable,
controversy, as between her and any one of the heirs. 63
Where contractors are made parties to a suit brought by
subcontractors to enforce the mechanics' lien, it does not
make it a separable controversy within the Act of 1887.64
Where a party claiming a first lien makes other lienors
parties defendant, one of whom files a cross-bill and makes
the other a party, presents a controversy involving only
the question of priority of liens, and is not a separable
controversy. 65 An action on a partnership obligation is
not separable. 66 Where the whole case depends on the
question of title between citizens of New York and citi-
zens of other States, and the case as to the other defend-
ants is a mere adjunct of the principal dispute, it is not
removable. 67
1 Blake v. McKim, 103 U.S. 336; Bybee v. Hackett, 5 Fed. Rep. 1;

. cos , Dill. 277; Burch v. Davenport etc. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 449.

2 Karns v. Atlantic & Ohio R. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 303; Chicago v. Gage, 6 Biss. 457; Blake v. McKim, 103 U, S. 3.6.

3 Donahue v. Mariposa L. & M. Co., 5 Sawy. 153. See Burch v. Daven port & St. P.R. Co., 46 Iowa, 419.

4 Miller v. Finn, 1 Neb. 231; Ryan v. Young, 11 Ch. L. N. 353.
5 First Nat. Bank v. King W. I. Co., 2 Cent. L. J. 505.
6 Ayers v. Chicago, 101 U. S. 184.
7 Price v. Foreman, 12 Fed. Rep. 641.
8 Tyler v. Hagerty, 10 Ch. L. N. 100.
9 Taylor v. Rockefeller, 35 Leg. Int. 284.
10 Patterson v. Chapman, 13 Blatchf. 33.


11 Re Frazer, 10 Ch. L. N. 390. See Price v. Foreman, 12 Fed. Rep. 641.

12 Bailey v. N. Y. Sav. B’k, 2 Fed. Rep. 14. 13 Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U. S. 576. 14 Latham v. Barney, 10 Ch. L. N, 11. 15 Bates v. Days, 11 Fed. Rep. 529. 16 Hervey v. Illinois M. R. Co., 7 Biss. 103. 17 Chicago v. Gage, 6 Biss 467; First Nat. B'k v. King W. I. Co., 2 Cent. L. J. 505.

18 Chicago v. Gage, 6 Biss. 467.
19 N. J. Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 410.
20 Hervey v. Illinois M. R. Co., 7 Biss. 103.
21 Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 107; Barney v. Latham, 103 U, S. 205.
22 Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Keogh, 7 Fed. Rep. 764.

23 Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 41; Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 192; Wilson v. Blodgett, 4 McLean, 360; Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U.S. 199; Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130; Clearwater v. Meredith, 21 How. 89; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280; Commercial etc. B'k v. Slocumb, 14 Peters, 65.

24 Shumway v. C. & I. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 385.
25 Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245.
26 Chester v. Chester, 7 Fed. Rep. 1.
27 Price v. Foreman, 12 Fed. Rep. 641.
28 Price v. Foreman, 12 Fed. Rep. 641.
29 Clark v. Opdyke, 17 N. Y. Supr. 383.
30 Lauriate v. Stratton, 11 Fed. Rep. 107.
31 Chaffraix v. Board of Liquidation, 11 Fed. Rep. 638.
32 Bailey v. New York Sav. B’k, 18 Blatchf. 77.
33 Ruckmann v. Palisades L. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 367.
34 Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539.
35 Clark v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 355.

36 Winchester v. Land, 108 U. S. 130; Capital Bank v. Hogdin, 22 Fed. Rep. 209; Wilson v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 3; Folsom v. Continental Bank, 14 Fed. Rep. 497.

37 Gudger v. Western North Carolina R. Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 81. 38 Mills v. Central R. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 449. 39 Core v. Verial, 117 U. S. 347. 40 Ayers v. Wiswall, 111 U, S. 187. 41 Ayers v. Wiswall, 111 U.S. 187; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co v. Wilson, 114 U. S. 60; Louisville & N. R. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Pirie v. Treat, 115 U. S. 41; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275; Has v. Caspar, 31 Fed. Rep. 499.

42 Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248. 43 Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275; Little v. Giles, 118 U.S. 596. 44 Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U. S. 408. 45 Le Mars v. Iowa Falls & Sioux City R. Co., 4 McCrary C. Ct. 218. 46 Crump v. Thurber, 115 U. S. 56; Long v. Buford, 24 Fed. Rep. 241.

47 Thompson v. Dixon, 28 Fed. Rep. 5. See Ayers v. Wiswall, 111 U. S. 187; Winchell v. Carll, 24 Fed. Rep. 865.

[ocr errors]

48 Mitchell v. Tillotson, 11 Biss. C. Ct. 325.
49 Langdon v. Fogg, 18 Fed. Rep. 5.
50 Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Huntington, 117 U.S. 280.
51 Pollok v. Louchheim, 19 Fed. Rep. 465.
52 Plymouth M. Co. v. Amador Canal Co., 118 U. S. 264.
53 Freidler v. Chotard, 19 Fed Rep. 227.
54 Flynn v. Des Moines & St. Louis Ry. Co., 63 Iowa, 490.
55 Blum v. Thomas, 60 Tex. 158.
56 O'Kelly v. Richmond & Danville R. Co., 89 N. C. 58.

57 Lyddy v. Gano, 26 Fed. Rep. 177; Contest of Will, Reed v. Reed, 31 Fed. Rep. 49.

58 Tuedt v. Carson, 4 McCrary C. Ct. 426.
53 Winnemans v. Edgington, 27 Fed. Rep. 3.4.
60 Sayer v. La Salle & Peru Gas Light Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 69.
61 Brande v. Gilchrist, 18 Fed. Rep. 465.
62 Galesburg v. Galesburg W. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 321.
63 Chapman v. Chapman, 28 Fed. Rep. 1.
64 Ames v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 881.
65 Bissell v. Canada etc. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 225.
66 Woodrum v. Clay, 33 Fed. Rep. 897.
67 Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U.S. 576.

§ 96 u. Joint action not separable. – Where there is a joint cause of action against several defendants there is no separable controversy.' So an action on a bond against principal and sureties is a single controversy.2 If plaintiff has a joint cause of action, or if joint and sev. eral is declared on jointly, defendant cannot by tendering separate issues, create separate controversies, so as to authorize a removal.3 Where parties having several and distinct interests elect to join in a single cause of action to enforce an obligation common to all, the case in respect to removal on the ground of citizenship is the same as if they had been compelled to unite. * So an action against heirs to subject lands to payment of alimony, is but a single controversy. In an action by separate judgment creditors to set aside the assignment, the only issue being fraud, no separable controversy is presented. In cases of accounting by trustee, all the beneficiaries are joint expectants and there can be n') separable controversy, and consequently one cannot remove the cause.? But where the bill demands a joint and several accounting the rule is otherwise. 8 Where all the defendants are directly interested in the relief sought it cannot be severed as to one."




1 O'Kelly v. Railroad, 89 N. C. 58.
2 West. Union Tel. Co. v. [Brown, 32 Fed. Rep. 337.

3 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Pirie v. Toedt, 115 U. S. 41; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. 8. 275; Fidelity Ins. etc. Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280; Brook v. Clark, 119 U. S. 502; Stanbrough v. Cook, (Iowa) 3 L. R. A. 400; Patchin v. Hunter, 33 Fed. Rep. 51; Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 396; Mitchell v. Shale, 140 U. S. 406; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57.

4 Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone, 121 U. S. 631. 5 Chapman v. Chapman, 28 Fed. Rep. 1. 6 Reineman v. Ball, 33 Fed. Rep. 692: May v. St. John, 38 Fed. Rep. 770. 7 Re McClean, 26 Fed. Rep. 49. 8 Boyd v. Gill, 21 Blatchf. 543; Langdon v. Fogg, 18 Fed. Rep. 5. 9 Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130.

96 v. In cases of joint torts.-In torts against several defendants, the authorities are not entirely har. monious, for it has been held that one may remove the cause as severable;' while in others they have been held inseverable. The fact that judgment may be rendered against a part of the defendants only does not divide a joint action in tort into separate parts, any more than it does a joint action on contract. An action brought in a State court against two jointly for a tort cannot be removed by either, although defendants have pieaded sev. erally, and plaintiff might have brought action against either alone. An action of trespass against a sheriff is not separable so as to be removable in respect to intervenors jointly liable. A declaration which charges two corporations with having jointly trespassed on plaintiff's land does not show a separable controversy. The fact that the plaintiffs may not be able to maintain their action as against all of the defendants does not make a separable controversy in favor of any one of them.?

1 Kreling v. Cotzhausen, 16 Fed. Rep. 705; Simmons v. Taylor, 83 N. C. 148.

2 Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41; Tvedt v. Carson, 4 McCrary. 426; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U.S. 275.

3 Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41.

4 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 U. S. 599; Plymouth Consol. Mining Co. v. Amador etc. Canal Co., 118 U. S. 264.

5 Thorn Wire Hedge Co. v. Fuller, 122 U. S. 535.
6 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 U. S. 599.
7 Kaitel v. Wylie, 32 Fed. Rep. 865.

§ 96 w. Separate defenses do not create separate controversies.-A separate controversy is not introduced into the case by separate defenses to the same cause of action. Separate defenses do not create separate controversies, within the meaning of the Removal Act.2 So, in a suit against joint contractors or joint trespassers, one cannot remove the cause merely because he alleges in his defense that he is not jointly interested.3 A creditor's bill to obtain distribution among lien-holders, although the defenses are separate, presents but a single controversy.4

1 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Wilson, 114 U. S. 60; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41; Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 243; Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U. S. 408; Fidelity Ins. T. & S. D. Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275; Core v. Vinal, 117 U. S. 317; Hax v. Caspar, 31 Fed. Rep. 500.

2 Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571; Little v. Giles. 118 U. S. 596; Re San Antonio & A. P. R. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 145; Ames v. Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 881.

3 Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596. 4 Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280. $ 96 x. Ancillary proceedings. A suit brought to enjoin a suit at law is only ancillary;' so proceedings in garnishment are ancillary:2

2 Proceedings in garnishment process are ancillary, and garnishees are not parties to the suit. The rights of applying creditors are merely incidental to the action, and the court will exercise jurisdiction over them. If supplementary proceedings are inseparably connected with the original judgment or decree, they cannot be removed; but it is otherwise where they are a mere mode of procedure or relief, involving an independent controversy with new or different parties." Where judgment was obtained against three defendants jointly, one of whom was a resident, to show cause why ihey should not be bound by the judgment, it is not a new action, but further proceedings in an old one. If a person has only an incidental interest growing out of the litigation, he cannot remove.? Where the whole case is between citizens of the same State it is not removable for diversity of citizenship of the parties to an auxiliary of the main dispute;8 and by a parity of reasoning, when the defendant, the real party in interest, is a citizen of another State, the right of removal may not be denied on the ground that another defendant, a mere garnishee,

« AnteriorContinuar »