Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

plaintiff's possession and control of the property are altogether useless, for there is not the same danger that he will spend the property while it is in the hands of the trustees, as there would be if it were in his own."

Stier v. Nashville Trust Co., decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 158 Fed. Rep. 601, is also directly in point.

The case of Sears v. Choate, 146 Massachusetts, 395, has been cited as in conflict with Claflin v. Claflin. It is not. In the former case it appeared that there had occurred circumstances which the testator had not contemplated, on account of which the court saw no reason for not terminating the trust. The case was distinguished in Claflin v. Claflin.

In the case at bar nothing has happened since the will which was not anticipated by the testatrix. The case falls, therefore, precisely within the later case of Claflin v. Claflin. There is no reason for declaring the trust invalid. There is no higher duty which rests upon a court than to carry out the intentions of a testator when the provision is not repugnant to settled principles of public policy and is otherwise valid.

Decree affirmed.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

229 U. S.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. DOWELL.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS.

No. 208. Submitted April 14, 1913.-Decided May 26, 1913. Quare, whether liability to a third person against the master may result from the servant's neglect of some duty owing to the employer alone. Positive acts of negligence on the part of an engineer while engaged in his employer's business toward a fellow-servant, are acts of misfeasance for which he is primarily liable notwithstanding his contract with his employer and the liability of the latter under the state statute.

If plaintiff allege that the concurrent negligence of both defendants caused his injury, he may join them in one action; and if he do so the fact that he might have sued them separately furnishes no ground for removal.

Whether or not defendants are jointly liable depends on plaintiff's averments in the statement of his cause of action, and it is a question for the state court to decide.

If the state court so decides, a plaintiff may join joint tort-feasors even though the liability of one is statutory and the liability of the other rests on the common law.

While issues of fact arising on the controverted allegations in a petition for removal are only triable in the Federal court, the state court may deny the petition if it is insufficient on its face. Mere averment that a resident defendant, in this case an employé of small means, is fraudulently joined with a non-resident defendant of undoubted responsibility for the purpose of preventing removal by the latter, is not sufficient to raise an issue of fraud in the absence of other averments of actual fraud. The motive of plaintiff in such a case is immaterial; if the right of joinder exists he can exercise it. 83 Kansas, 562, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the construction of the Removal Act and what constitutes a separable controversy as to a non-resident defendant sued jointly with a resident defendant, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. F. C. Dillard and Mr. Paul E. Walker for plaintiffs in error:

229 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

The petition for the removal of the suit to the United States court should have been allowed, as the controversy. was separable.

The State of Kansas prohibited the joinder of the several causes of action. 3 Am. and Eng. Anno. Cases, pp. 283, 285; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Sumner County, 51 Kansas, 617; Benson v. Battey, 70 Kansas, 288; Enos v. Kentucky Distilleries, 189 Fed. Rep. 342; Griffith v. Griffith, 71 Kansas, 547; Harrod v. Farrar, 68 Kansas, 153; Haskell Bank v. Santa Fe Bank, 51 Kansas, 39; Hentig v. Benevolent Assn., 45 Kansas, 462; Hudson v. Atchison County, 12 Kansas, 141; Hurd v. Simpson, 47 Kansas, 372; Illinois Central v. Sheegog, 215 U. S. 308; Jeffers v. Forbes, 28 Kansas, 174; Lindh v. Crowley, 26 Kansas, 47; Marshall v. Saline River Land Co., 75 Kansas, 445; Mentzger v. Burlingame, 71 Kansas, 581; M'Allister v. Ches. & O. Ry. Co., 198 Fed. Rep. 660; New v. Smith, 68 Kansas, 807; Nicholas v. Ches. & O. Ry. Co., 195 Fed. Rep. 913; Palmer v. Waddell, 22 Kansas, 352; Ritzer v. Davis County, 48 Kansas, 389; State v. Addison, 76 Kansas, 699; State v. Reno County, 38 Kansas, 317; State v. Shufford, 77 Kansas, 263; Stewart v. Rosengren, 66 Nebraska, 445; Swenson v. Moline Plow Co., 14 Kansas, 387; Veariel v. United Engineering Co., 197 Fed. Rep. 877.

The removing defendant was liable, if at all, under the terms of the Kansas statute; the resident defendant, if at all, only under the rules of the common law. The causes of action were therefore separable. Alaska Mining Co. v. Whelan, 168 U. S. 86; 8 Am. & Eng. Anno. Cas., p. 233; Ayers v. Commissioners, 37 Kansas, 240; Balt. & O. R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368; Butler v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 224 U. S. 85; Central R. Co. v. Keegan, 160 U. S. 259; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stepp, 151 Fed. Rep. 908; Henry v. Ill. Cen. R. Co., 132 Fed. Rep. 715; Hoye v. Raymond, 25 Kansas, 665; Jackson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 178 Fed. Rep. 432; Larned v. Boyd, 76 Kansas,

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

229 U. S.

37; Lockard v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 167 Fed. Rep. 675. Martin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 166 U. S. 399; McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kansas, 533; Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Charless, 162 U. S. 359; North. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hambly, 154 U. S. 349; Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Peterson, 162 U. S. 346; Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Poirier, 167 U. S. 48; Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dixon, 194 U. S. 338; New Eng. Ry. Co. v. Conroy, 175 U. S. 323; Prince v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 1; Swartz v. Siegel, 117 Fed. Rep. 13; St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. Sage, 71 Fed. Rep. 40; State v. Mosman, 231 Missouri, 474; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U. S. 536; Un. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 285; Veariel v. United Engineering Co., 197 Fed. Rep. 877; Webber v. St. Paul Ry. Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 140.

The decisions of this court do not establish principles in conflict with the contentions of the plaintiff in error. Alabama G. Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Dixon, 179 U. S. 131; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U. S. 221; Dowell v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 83 Kansas, 562; East Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Grayson, 119 U. S. 240; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Sheegog, 215 U. S. 308; Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 U. S. 599; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41; Plymouth Mining Co. v. Amador Canal Co., 118 U. S. 264; Powers v. Ches. & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275; Southern Ry. Co. v. Carson, 194 U. S. 136; Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 217 U. S. 209; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Torrence v. Shedd, 124 U. S. 527; Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U. S. 635.

The allegations of fact contained in the petition for removal were matters for the exclusive determination of the Federal court. Arapahoe Co. v. Ry. Co., 4 Dill. 277; Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513;

229 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

Carson v. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 279; Ches. & O. Ry. Co. v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207; Crehore v. Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co., 131 U. S. 240; Dudley v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 96 S. W. Rep. 835; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Sheegog, 215 U. S. 308; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Coley, 89 S. W. Rep. 234; Kansas City R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298; Kansas City Belt Ry. Co. v. Herman, 187 U. S. 63; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 U. S. 599; Madisonville Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239; Schwyhart v. Barrett, 145 Mo. App. 332; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Eastin, 214 U. S. 153; Underwood v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 103 S. W. Rep. 322; Wecker v. Nat. Enameling Co., 204 U. S. 176.

Apart from the allegations of negligence with which the resident defendant was charged, the petition contained other and distinct controversies between the plaintiff and the removing defendant. Adderson v. Southern Ry. Co., 177 Fed. Rep. 571; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; Batey v. Nashville Ry. Co., 95 Fed. Rep. 368; Beuttel v. Chicago & St. P. Ry. Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 50; Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 135 Fed. Rep. 650; S. C., 212 U. S. 364; Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. N. Y., L. E. & N. R. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 516; Connell v. Smiley, 156 U. S. 335; Elkins v. Howell, 140 Fed. Rep. 157; Erb v. Popritz, 59 Kansas, 264; Ferguson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 177; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191; Geer v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 428; Gudger v. Western N. C. R. Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 81; Gustafson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 85; Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562; Hartshorn v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 9; Henry v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 132 Fed. Rep. 715; Hoye v. Raymond, 25 Kansas, 665; Leavenworth, W. & S. Ry. Co. v. Wilkins, 45 Kansas, 674; M'Allister v. Ches. & O. R. Co., 198 Fed. Rep. 660; McGuire v. G. Nor. R. Co., 153 Fed. Rep. 434; Nichols v. Ches. & O. Ry. Co., 195 Fed. Rep. 913; Southern Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 115 Georgia, 1022; Southern Ry. Co. v. Robbins, 43 Kansas, 145; Telegraph

.

« AnteriorContinuar »