TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Walrath

Phœnix Life Insurance Company v. Walrath

Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Walrath, 117 U.S. 365 (1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 29, 1886
Docket
No. 196
Judges
Waite
Citations
117 U.S. 3656 S. Ct. 76829 L. Ed. 9241886 U.S. LEXIS 1850
Syllabus
The right .to remove a. suit from a State court to a Circuit Court of the United States, being once lost by reason of non-user “before or at the term at which said cause could be first tried and before the trial thereof,” is not revived by a subsequent amendment of the pleadings which creates new and different issues.
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. This suit was commenced July 19,1880, in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error ' to recover sums of ' money alleged to have been received by him as its agent and converted to his own use; and was put at issue August 26, 1880, by a plea of the general issue. At the trial in February, 1881, evidence offered by defendant was objected to on the ground that the defence which it disclosed should have been specially pleaded. Defendant then moved for leavé to file a special plea, and the motion was denied. A verdict was then taken 'for plaintiff, and judgment entered, May 2,1881, on the verdict. The Supreme Court of the State, on appeal, reversed the judgment in October, 1881, and remanded the cause for a new trial. The defendant in April, 1882, moved for leave to file an amended answer, which was granted, and plaintiff given time to reply to it.'. Pending this grant of time, plaintiff filed a petition to remove the case to the Circuit Court of the United States, on the ground that the petitioner “ at the date of the commencement of the above entitled action, and long prior thereto, was, and still is, a corporation organized and existing under an.d by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut, and that the defendant was and is a citizen of the State of ’Wisconsin.” The petition was granted and the case removed. In the Circuit Court of the United States, on motion of the defendant the 'cause was remanded to the State court. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error to review that judgment.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief-Justice Waite delivered'the opinion of the court.

The order remanding this case is affirmed... The right to the removal of a suit.under the act of March 3, 1876, 18 Stat. 470 , ch. 137, is lost by a failure to' file a petition “ before or at the .term at-which said cause could be first tried and before the trial thereof,” and it is not restored by an amendment of -the pleadings afterwards so as to present different issues. As was said in Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U. S. 606, 612 , “the act of Congress does not provide for the removal of a cause at the first .term at which a .trial -can be had on the issues, as finally *367 settled by leave of the court or otherwisé, but at the first term at which the cause, as a cause, could be tried.” This rule has been strictly adhered to.

Edrington v. Jefferson, 111 U. S. 770, 775 ;

Pullman Palace Car Co.

v. Speck, 113 U. S. 84, 87 ;

Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U. S. 742, 745 . Here the suit was begun July 19, issue joined August 26,1880, and a trial had February 23, 1881, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the present plaintiff in error. This judgment was reversed by an. appellate court October 19, 1881, and the cause sent back for. a new trial. In the trial court an amended answer which contained a counter-claim was filed on leave May 20, 1882, and the petition for removal was not filed until September 13,1882. This was clearly too late. .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 11939: 11947: 12024: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baker v. Keebler29 F. Supp. 555 (E.D. Tenn. 1939)
  2. Aktiebolaget Svenska Handels-Banken v. Chase Nat. Bank of New York69 F. Supp. 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)
  3. Stix & Co. v. Keith90 Ala. 121 (1890)
  4. Amezquita v. Garcia-CortezNo. 5:20-cv-08285 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2024)

Most recent

  1. Amezquita v. Garcia-CortezNo. 5:20-cv-08285 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2024)
  2. Aktiebolaget Svenska Handels-Banken v. Chase Nat. Bank of New York69 F. Supp. 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)
  3. Baker v. Keebler29 F. Supp. 555 (E.D. Tenn. 1939)
  4. Stix & Co. v. Keith90 Ala. 121 (1890)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U.S. 606 (1881) 47
Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U.S. 742 (1885) 35
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Speck, 113 U.S. 84 (1885) 33
Edrington v. Jefferson, 111 U.S. 770 (1884) 8

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