Myrtle v. Nevada, C. & O. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 137 F. 193
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5217

Syllabus

<p>1. Removal of Causes—Time foe Removal—Amendment of Complaint.</p> <p>The law is well settled that an amendment to a complaint in the state court which transforms a nonremovable case into a removable one gives the defendant the' right to remove if he acts promptly.</p> <p>2. Same—Federal Question.</p> <p>A federal question which will confer jurisdiction on a United States court either by original process or by removal must be a question of law as stated by the plaintiff in his complaint, and, when a legal question arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States has been decided by the Supreme Court, it ceases to be a federal question for removal purposes. Where the facts only are in dispute, the federal court cannot take jurisdiction.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Jurisdiction in cases involving federal question, see notes to Bailey v. Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 308; Montana Ore Purch. Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. & S. Min. Co., 35 C. C. A. 7.]</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>An action in a state court to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by reason of the failure of defendant railroad company to properly equip its cars with safety appliances is not removable merely because of an allegation in the complaint that defendant is engaged in interstate commerce, where it does not appear that there is any controversy as to the construction or effect of the federal law relating to railroads engaged in such commerce, since the questions of fact whether defendant is engaged in interstate commerce, and, if so, whether it has complied with the law, are not federal questions.</p>