Gaugler v. Chicago, M. & P. S. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 197 F. 79
• 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1385

Syllabus

<p>1. Removal oe Causes (§ 107*) — Motion to Remand — Renewal.</p> <p>That a former federal district judge overruled a motion to remand the cause to a state court, does not preclude his successor from granting leave to renew the motion; the court’s jurisdiction being always oi>en to challenge.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Removal of Causes, Cent. Dig. ,§§, 178, 225-234; Dec. Dig. § 107.*]</p> <p>2. Courts (§ 322*) — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—“Resident.”</p> <p>A complaint stating that plaintiff is a “resident” of a specified state is insufficient to show that he is a citizen of that state as affecting the question of jurisdiction of a federal court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 876-8S1, 887; Dec. Dig. § 322.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6161-6166; vol. 8, p. 7788.]:</p> <p>3. Removal of Causes (§§ 31, 51*) — Separable Controversies.</p> <p>An action by a citizen of Montana as insured under four fire policies issued by nonresident companies, who having paid less than a total loss joined to recover the total loss in, an action against a railway company for having negligently destroyed 'the insured’s property, the insurance companies having been subrogated pro tanto to the rights of the insured, does not state a separable controversy authorizing defendant to remove the cause to a federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship on the theory that insured seeks to sue at law, while insurers ask equitable relief, nor authorize removal on the ground that insurers are not necessary parties, since the statutes of Montana, where the suit was brought, provide that there shall be hut one form of action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.</p> <p>[Ed. .Note. — For other eases, see Removal of-Causes, Cent. Dig. §§ 71, 101;. Dec. Dig. §§ 31, 51.*</p> <p>Separable controversy as ground for removal of cause, see notes to Robbins v. Ellenbogen, 18 C. C. A. 86; Meeke v