TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Locomotive Co. v. Histed

Am. Locomotive Co. v. Histed, 18 F.2d 656 (W.D. Mo. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, W.D. Missouri · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 9, 1926
Docket
No. 738
Judges
Reeves
Citations
18 F.2d 6561926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1731

Opinion of the Court — Reeves

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

REEVES, District Judge.

In this proceeding, the several defendants have separately, as well as jointly, filed their petitions for removal to this court, and the plaintiffs have correspondingly moved to remand as to each defendant. A brief statement of facts will be sufficient to justify the ruling here made.

At the time the suit was instituted, and at the present time, defendant William T. Kemper was and is receiver, under appointment of the District Court of the District of Kansas, for the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Bailway Company, a corporation. This receivership was pending at all of the times mentioned in the petition. The petition challenges by sundry allegations the good faith of the said Kemper in performing his duties as receiver, and the whole action is based upon alleged delinquencies on his part, in association with the other defendants. Under such circumstances, without regard to the question of diversity of citizenship or the amount involved, the whole matter is cognizable in this court.

By an amendment to section 33 of the Judicial Code, now section 1015, United States Compiled Statutes 1918, provision was made for the removal of any civil suit “against any officer of the courts of the United States for or on account of any act done under color of his office or in the performance of his duties as such officer.” A receiver, under appointment of the federal court, is an officer of the court within the purview of this section. Matarazzo v. Hustis (D. C.) 256 F. 882 , loc. cit. 887; Lewis on Removal of Causes, § 140a.

A careful perusal of the bill in the case discloses that it is based upon acts of the receiver “done under the color of his office or in the performance of his duty as such officer.”

“All other questions become immaterial in the controversy, as it was clearly the purpose of the ajnendment to confer jurisdiction of such controversies upon the national court. The several motions to remand will be denied, and jurisdiction of the matter in dispute will be retained here. Plaintiffs will be allowed exceptions to this ruling.

How later courts describe this case

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

1927: 11933: 21934: 11945: 119272026peak 1933 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ruff v. Gay67 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1933)
  2. Ruff v. Gay3 F. Supp. 264 (S.D. Ga. 1933)
  3. Newell v. Byram18 F.2d 657 (D. Minnesota 1927)
  4. Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.5 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Okla. 1934)
  5. Potts v. Elliott61 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Ky. 1945)

Most recent

  1. Potts v. Elliott61 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Ky. 1945)
  2. Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.5 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Okla. 1934)
  3. Ruff v. Gay67 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1933)
  4. Ruff v. Gay3 F. Supp. 264 (S.D. Ga. 1933)
  5. Newell v. Byram18 F.2d 657 (D. Minnesota 1927)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Matarazzo v. Hustis, 256 F. 882 (N.D.N.Y. 1919) 31

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