TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale

Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale, 132 F. 713 (1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
September 6, 1904
Judges
Racombe
Citations
132 F. 7131904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5043
Headnotes
1. Removal or Causes — Jurisdiction oe Federal Court. Where a federal court is without jurisdiction of a cause on removal, it is not conferred by the acts of the plaintiff in participating in steps taken in the suit after removal. 2. Same — Amount in Controversy — Counterclaim. Whether the amount of a counterclaim set up by a removing defendant may be added to the plaintiff’s claim to give the federal court jurisdiction of the cause is at least so doubtful under the authorities as to require that court to decline jurisdiction. ¶ 2. Jurisdiction of circuit courts as determined by the amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Lombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459. See Removal of Causes, vol. 42, Cent. Dig. §§ 131, 220.
Summary
On Motion to Remand to State Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Racombe

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

RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The action, which is one to recover $1,022.61 for goods sold and delivered, was brought in the city court of the city of New York. The defendant answered, setting up a counterclaim in the amount of $3,500, and removed the cause into this court. Various steps have been taken since removal, such as demand for bill of particulars, examining witnesses on commission, etc.; but if this court has no jurisdiction under the statute, that circumstance is immaterial. Broadway Ins. Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. (C. C.) 101 Fed. 507 .

The single question presented here is whether, in determining what is the matter in the dispute, the amount of the counterclaim shall be added to the amount of the claim, or whether the latter only shall be considered. On this proposition there is a conflict of authority. Mc-Ginnity v. White, 3 Dill. 351 , Fed. Cas. No. 8,802; Clarkson v. Manson (C. C.) 4 Fed. 257 ; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co. (C. C.) 44 Fed. 645 . The question is, to say the least, a doubtful one, and where a substantial doubt exists as to the jurisdiction of the-federal court the cause should be remanded.

It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1908: 21912: 11951: 119082026peak 1908 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N. R.201 F. 932 (E.D. Tenn. 1912)
  2. McLean Trucking Co. v. Carolina Scenic Stages, Inc.95 F. Supp. 437 (M.D.N.C. 1951)
  3. Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins.163 F. 82 (1908)
  4. Hill v. Woodland Amusement Co.158 F. 530 (Cir. Ct. Del. 1908)

Most recent

  1. McLean Trucking Co. v. Carolina Scenic Stages, Inc.95 F. Supp. 437 (M.D.N.C. 1951)
  2. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N. R.201 F. 932 (E.D. Tenn. 1912)
  3. Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins.163 F. 82 (1908)
  4. Hill v. Woodland Amusement Co.158 F. 530 (Cir. Ct. Del. 1908)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Broadway Ins. v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 101 F. 507 (1900) 15
Clarkson v. Manson, 4 F. 257 (1880) 12
La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 44 F. 645 (1891) 9

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