Union Terminal Ry. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri
On Motion to Remand to State Court. The plaintiff, a Missouri corporation, filed its petition in the state circuit court of Buchanan county, Mo., against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (hereinafter called the “Burlington Railroad”), an Illinois corporation, and the Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company (hereinafter called the “Council Bluffs Railroad”), a Missouri corporation, to have condemned for the plaintiff’s use certain lands at…
Read the full summary
On Motion to Remand to State Court. The plaintiff, a Missouri corporation, filed its petition in the state circuit court of Buchanan county, Mo., against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (hereinafter called the “Burlington Railroad”), an Illinois corporation, and the Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company (hereinafter called the “Council Bluffs Railroad”), a Missouri corporation, to have condemned for the plaintiff’s use certain lands at the city of St. Joseph, in Buchanan county, Mo., alleged to be owned by the defendant companies. The proceeding was had…
1Opinion of the CourtPhieips, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The first question arising on the motion to remand is whether or not the allegations of the petition for removal are true. It is a settled rule of procedure that, where the petition alleges a joint cause of action against a resident and nonresident defendant, the cause is not removable on petition of the nonresident, although it is averred in the petition for removal that the resident defendant has no interest .in the controversy or that the cause of action in fact is not joint; nor is it *211sufficient that the answers of the defendants raise a separable controversy,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Mexican National Railroad v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Boatmen's Bank v. FritzlenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Rea v. Standard Mirror Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Gustafson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1904
- South Dakota Cent. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.