Markey v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Dallas District Court. — Hon. W. H. Fahey, Judge. As reversal is ordered because we hold that'the trial court should have granted appellant’s petition for removal, our consideration is limited to giving our reasons for reaching said conclusion. The facts will be stated in course of the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSalinger, J.
*258causes: motion : statute1 which tomit Satuie'not11 applicable. *257— I. On the 13th day of August, 1913, the plaintiff, appellee, filed petition charging defendant with hav*258ing negligently injured him, and demanding judgment in the sum of three thousand dollars therefor. On the 21st day of August, defendant filed 311 which is practically a general denial. On the 4th day of November, 1913, fog grst ¿ay of the November term in that year, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his petition by raising the prayer for judgment from three thousand dollars to six thousand dollars. The motion was…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Fritzlen v. Boatmen's BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. AustinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Daugherty v. Western Union Tel. Co.District Court, D. Indiana · 1894
- Yates v. FrenchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Worez v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Mohn v. MohnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Egan v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Pels v. StevensSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Ransom v. Sipple Truck Lines, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.