Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Eastin & Knox
Supreme Court of the United States
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. This action was instituted by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the Texas and Pacific Company, and J. M. Tucker, its agent, for wrongfully billing and shipping 712 head of cows and calves via one road, though they were requested to be shipped via another, whereby they iyere required to go twice as far, and were seriously injured and damaged thereby.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. This action was instituted by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the Texas and Pacific Company, and J. M. Tucker, its agent, for wrongfully billing and shipping 712 head of cows and calves via one road, though they were requested to be shipped via another, whereby they iyere required to go twice as far, and were seriously injured and damaged thereby. It is alleged in the original petition that plaintiffs in the action, defendants here, were residents of the county of…
1Opinion of the Court
Mb. Justice McKenna,
after stating the facts as abqve¿ delivered the opinion óf the court.
• The assignments of error present the question of the right of the Texas and Pacific Company to-a removal of the case to' the Circuit Court of the United States, (1) Because, being a corporation chartered under an -act of Congress, the suit was-•.one arising under the laws of thé United States, and that this character was not taken from it by joining a local- defendant, when it was an action to establish a-joint liability.-'- (2) Where, the facts stated in the petition-for removal. show 'a cause properly…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Merchants Heat & Light Co. v. J. B. Clow & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McCabeSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Matter of DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
3Cited by17 opinions
- Frazier v. HinesDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1919
- In Re Green River Drainage AreaDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1956
- Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Banks' Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Acosta v. Direct Merchants BankDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2002
- Grand River Dam Authority v. GoingDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1939
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.