TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kavourgias v. Nicholaou Co.

KAVOURGIAS v. NICHOLAOU CO., Limited

Kavourgias v. Nicholaou Co., 148 F.2d 96 (9th Cir. 1945)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 12, 1945
Docket
No. 10801
Judges
Garrecht, Mathews, Stephens
Citations
148 F.2d 961945 A.M.C. 3081945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2403

Opinion — Mathews

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit by appellant, Ioannis Kavourgias, a citizen and subject of the Kingdom of . Greece, against appellee, Nicholaou Company, Limited, a Greek corporation, for damages in the sum of $10,-000. The suit was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco, but, on petition of appellee, was removed from that court to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. There appellee moved for and obtained a so-called order of court declining jurisdiction. From that order — which was, in effect, a judgment of dismissal— this appeal is prosecuted.

The question is whether the suit was removable. Though not raised by the parties, the question is here and must be decided.

1

Section 28 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 71, provides for removal of any “suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, * * * of which the district courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction.”

By § 24(1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(1), the district courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction of “all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, * * * where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,-000, and (a) arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or (b) is between citizens of different States, or citizens of the District of Columbia, the Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory, or (c) is between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.”

*97 This was a suit of a civil nature, at common law, and the matter in controversy exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000, but it did not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States or any treaty, nor was it between citizens of different States, or citizens of the District of Columbia, Hawaii or Alaska and any State or Territory, nor was it between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects. It was between aliens.

Being a suit between aliens, wherein no Federal question was raised, this was not a suit of which the district courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction, 2

and hence was not removable.

3

Order reversed and case remanded to the District Court, with directions to remand it to the Superior Court.

1

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413 , 31 S.Ct. 460 , 55 L.Ed. 521 ; Cheyne v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Cir., 125 F.2d 49 .

2

Cunard S.S. Co. v. Smith, 2 Cir., 255 F. 846, 848 ; Doidge v. Cunard S.S. Co., 1 Cir., 19 F.2d 500, 502 ; Ex parte Edeltein, 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 636, 638 . See, also, Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12 , 1 L.Ed. 720 ; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch 46 , 2 L.Ed. 545 ; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303 , 3 L.Ed. 108 ; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136 , 7 L.Ed. 374 .

3

Judicial Code, § 28, 28 U.S.C.A. § 71 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1945: 11946: 11950: 21951: 21953: 11957: 11958: 11959: 11987: 12014: 119452026peak 1950 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. (Two Cases)209 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1953)
  2. Metzeler v. Bouchard Transportation Co. (In re Metzeler)78 B.R. 674 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)
  3. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fowles154 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1946)
  4. Matao Yokeno v. Sawako Sekiguchi754 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2014)
  5. Tsitsinakis v. Simpson, Spence & Young90 F. Supp. 578 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)
  6. Catherall v. Cunard S. S. Co.101 F. Supp. 230 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)

Most recent

  1. Matao Yokeno v. Sawako Sekiguchi754 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2014)
  2. Metzeler v. Bouchard Transportation Co. (In re Metzeler)78 B.R. 674 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)
  3. Firpi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.175 F. Supp. 188 (D.P.R. 1959)
  4. Cuozzo v. ITALIAN LINE," ITALIA"-SOCIETA PER AZIONI, ETC.168 F. Supp. 304 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
  5. Meikle v. Leeds Shipping Co.152 F. Supp. 206 (E.D. Va. 1957)
  6. Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. (Two Cases)209 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 9

DepthCaseCited by
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413 (1911) 188
Hodgson & Thompson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303 (1809) 64
Mossman, Surviving in Error v. Higginson, Surviving Partner, in Error, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 12 (1800) 61
Montalet v. Murray, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 46 (1807) 60
Jackson v. Twentyman, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 136 (1829) 27
Ex Parte Edelstein, 30 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1929) 37
Cunard S. S. Co. v. Smith, 255 F. 846 (2d Cir. 1918) 21
Doidge v. Cunard S. S. Co., 19 F.2d 500 (1st Cir. 1927) 16
Cheyne v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 125 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1942) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list