Winters v. Drake
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio
On Motion to Remand to State Court. The plaintiff’s petition, in its caption and in the body of it, as also the summons or writ, sues the defendant “as the receiver of the Cincinnati, Jackson & Mackinaw Railway Company,” but nowhere states the fact that he was appointed receiver, or that he holds and operates the road by order of the United States circuit court for the Northern district of Ohio.
Read the full summary
On Motion to Remand to State Court. The plaintiff’s petition, in its caption and in the body of it, as also the summons or writ, sues the defendant “as the receiver of the Cincinnati, Jackson & Mackinaw Railway Company,” but nowhere states the fact that he was appointed receiver, or that he holds and operates the road by order of the United States circuit court for the Northern district of Ohio. The defendant in proper time filed in the state court his petition for removal, setting forth all the requisite jurisdictional facts, and, among others, “that the suit is one arising under the…
1Opinion of the CourtHammohd, J.
It must be conceded that the supreme court of the United States, in removal cases, has carried the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the subject-matter must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s own case, and cannot be injected into the record by the defendant in making his case for removal, to such extreme length that our jurisdiction here is very doubtful. Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 14 Sup. Ct. 654, 38 L. Ed. 511; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102, 15 Sup. Ct. 34, 39 L. Ed. 85; Land Co. v. Brown, 155 U. S. 488, 15 Sup. Ct. 357, 39 L. Ed. 233; Railway Co. v.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- United States v. IshamSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee Ex Rel. MemphisSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Metcalf v. WatertownSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fay v. American Cystoscope Makers, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- Union Terminal Ry. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1902
- People's United States Bank v. GoodwinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1908
- Baker v. CalhounDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1944
- Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.