Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin
Citations
- 178 U.S. 245
- 20 S. Ct. 854
- 44 L. Ed. 1055
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1672
Syllabus
<p>This was an ordinary action, under a state statute, for wrongfully causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate, in which no Federal question was presented by the pleadings, or litigated at the trial, and in which the liability depended upon principles of general law, and not in any way upon the terms of the order appointing the receivers; and whatever the rights of the receivers might have been to remove the cause if they had been sued alone, the controversy was not a separable controversy within the intent and meaning of the act of March 3, 188*7, as corrected by the act of August 13,1888, and this being so, the case came solely within the first clause of the section, and it was not intended by Congress that, under such circumstances, there should be any difference between the rule applied under the first and second clauses of the act.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that under what is now § 1441, every defendant must expressly consent to notice of removal
- remanding a case removed by receivers based on their federal appointment, and holding that the consent of the non-federally appointed receiver defendant was still required, even if it could not have removed the case if it had been the sole defendant
- “A defendant has no right to say that an action shall be several which a plaintiff elects to make joint.”
- “And in view of the language of the statute we think the proper conclusion is that all the defendants must join in the application under either clause.”
- “[I]t [is] well settled that a removal could not be effected unless all the parties on the same side of the controversy united in the petition. . . .”
- “[I]t [is] well settled that a removal could not be effected unless all the parties on the same side of the controversy united in the petition. . . .”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.