TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Southern Pac. Co. v. Burch

Southern Pac. Co. v. Burch, 152 F. 168 (9th Cir. 1907)
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
February 11, 1907
Docket
No. 1,345
Judges
Gilbert, Morrow, Ross
Citations
152 F. 16882 C.C.A. 341907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4263
Headnotes
Removal of Causes — Jurisdiction op Federal Court — Nonresidence op Parties. A federal court cannot acquire jurisdiction by removal of a suit in which such jurisdiction is dependent on diversity of citizenship, where neither of the parties is a resident of the district, and the plaintiff does not consent to such jurisdiction or waive his rights. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 42, Removal of Causes, §§ 32, 33.]
Summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ross

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

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

This action was originally brought in one of the courts of the state of Nevada by the defendant in error as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error as defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff to the action by reason of the negligence of the defendant thereto. The plaintiff being a resident and citizen of the state of Utah, and the defendant to the action being a corporation of the state of Kentucky, and therefore a resident and citizen of that state, upon the defendant’s motion, and the filing of a petition and bond, the case was removed from the state court of Nevada to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, where the plaintiff to the action, defendant in error here, moved the court below to remand the case to the state court for lack of jurisdiction in the federal court over it, which motion the court below denied, and a trial thereof having been subsequently had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the case was brought here by the defendant thereto by writ of error.

Neither party to the suit being a citizen or resident of the state of Nevada at the time of its commencement, we must, without reference to the merits of the controversy, upon the authority of the case of Ex parte Abram C. Wisner (decided by the Supreme Court December 10, 1906) 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150, 51 L. Ed. -, reverse the judgment, with costs to the defendant in error, and with directions to the court below to remand the case to the state court from whence it came, for lack of jurisdiction of the federal court over it.

How later courts describe this case

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

1907: 11909: 11920: 11929: 119072026peak 1907 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burch v. Southern Pacific Co.32 Nev. 75 (1909)
  2. Nickels v. Pullman Co.268 F. 610 (W.D. Va. 1920)
  3. Jones v. Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co.31 F.2d 383 (D. Idaho 1929)
  4. Stimson v. United Wrapping Mach. Co.156 F. 298 (1907)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co.31 F.2d 383 (D. Idaho 1929)
  2. Nickels v. Pullman Co.268 F. 610 (W.D. Va. 1920)
  3. Burch v. Southern Pacific Co.32 Nev. 75 (1909)
  4. Stimson v. United Wrapping Mach. Co.156 F. 298 (1907)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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