Laird v. Indemnity Mut. Marine Assur. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
On Motion to Remand to State Court. Act Cong. March 3,1887, provides, inter aMa, that the circuit and district courts shall not take cognizance of actions “to recover the contents * * * of any chose in action in favor of any assignee,” unless such courts would have had jurisdiction of such actions before the assignment was made.
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, Circuit Judge.
This is an action to recover upon a contract of reinsurance, and for reformation of the policy, if necessary. It is therefore an action “to recover the contents of a chose in action.” Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 686. The plaintiff is an assignee of the chose in action, and as, under the authorities, he is not within the exception of the first section of the act of 1887, this court can have no cognizance of his suit thereon, unless such suit might have been prosecuted here if no assignment had been made. Simons v. Paper Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 193;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Claflin v. Commonwealth InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Shoecraft v. BloxhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Rateau v. BernardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1854
3Cited by3 opinions
- Foulk v. GrayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · 1902
- Hoadley v. DayU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1904
- Quinlan v. City of New OrleansU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana · 1897