Dodd v. Louisville Bridge Co.
Citations
- 130 F. 186
- 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4796
Syllabus
<p>1. Removal oe Causes — Motion to Remand — Presumption of Regularity of Procedure in State Court.</p> <p>Where, in a suit by stockholders of a corporation, brought in a state court, relief was granted to the plaintiffs, their right to which was affirmed on appeal by the highest court of the state, on a subsequent removal of 'the cause, after the filing of supplemental pleadings, it will be assumed by the federal court, prima facie, at least, and for the purposes of a motion to remand, that, under the laws of the state, plaintiffs had the right to maintain the suit in their own names to enforce the rights asserted in their pleadings, and that the pleadings they were permitted to file in the state court were appropriate under the state practice.</p> <p>2. Same — Citizenship of Parties.</p> <p>Where plaintiffs sued as individuals, and the courts of the state in which the suit was brought sustained their right to maintain their suit in such capacity, their individual citizenship must determine the right of a defendant to remove the cause, notwithstanding an averment in the petition for removal that they sued as stockholders of a corporation, and that the recovery they sought was in the sole right and for the benefit of such corporation.</p> <p>ji 2. Diverse citizenship as ground of federal jurisdiction, see notes to Shipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249; Mason v. Dullagham, 27 C. C. A. 298.</p> <p>3. Same — Coepobation of Several States.</p> <p>A petition for removal filed by a defendant railroad company stated that it was a corporation incorporated under the laws of a number of different states, among which were the states of Indiana and Illinois; that it was formed by the consolidation of corporations of said several states; that the cause of action sued on arose out of a contract for the use of a bridge across the Ohio river owned by a Kentucky corporation of which complainants were stockholders, which contract was made by an Indiana railroad company subsequently cons
Judges: Evans
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Baltimore & O. R. v. ThompsonE.D. Missouri· 1948-03-31· cited 6×
- Nash v. McNamaraU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada· 1906-05-07· cited 6×
- Haas v. HenkelU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1909-01-07· cited 2×
- Waller v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadS.D. New York· 1955-02-02· cited 1×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Grace v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court· 1883-11-19· cited 277×
- Robertson v. CeaseSupreme Court· 1878-11-18· cited 222×
- Carson v. DunhamSupreme Court· 1887-04-25· cited 140×
- Börs v. PrestonSupreme Court· 1884-04-07· cited 106×
- Southern Railway Co. v. AllisonSupreme Court· 1903-05-18· cited 69×
- Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1883-04-18· cited 64×
- Johnson v. Wells, Fargo & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1899-01-09· cited 30×
- Concord Coal Co. v. HaleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire· 1896-10-20· cited 6×
- United States Nat. Bank of New York v. McNairU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina· 1893-04-10· cited 3×
- Baldwin v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan· 1898-03-31· cited 3×
- Paul v. Baltimore & O. & C. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana· 1890-12-11· cited 2×
Sourced 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.