TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barber v. Boston & M. R. Co.

Barber v. Boston & M. R. Co., 145 F. 52 (1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
April 7, 1906
Judges
Wheeler
Citations
145 F. 521906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4745
Headnotes
1. Removal of Causes — Amount in Dispute. An action on the case to recover $2,000 damages for negligence Is not removable, although the actual damages are alleged to be greater. - [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 42, Cent. Dig. Removal of Causes, 5 132.] 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.] 2. Same — Time fob Filing Petition — Change in Pleadings. The right of removal arises at any time during the progress of a case whenever by a change in the pleadings or proceedings the cause is rendered for the first time removable.
Summary
At Law. 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 — Wheeler

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This is an action on the case brought in a state court, and removed here for negligently setting fire to the plaintiff’s buildings destroying some, and partly destroying other, property alleged to be of the value with expense of repairs of much more than $2,000 with an ad damnum of that amount. It has now been heard on a motion to remand. The motion would be too late, being after the term at which it was entered, if the ground was not jurisdictional; as it is the motion is in order at any time. The allegations of value and expense are not of sums certain like those in debt or assumpsit on records or written instruments, which must be proved as laid; but evidence of different amounts would be admissible under them, and the limit of recovery on all would be the ad damnum, and so that would govern the amount in dispute. Cole v. Goodall, 39 Vt. 400 , 94 Am. Dec. 334 ; Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97 , 10 L. Ed. 900 ; Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198 , 14 L. Ed. 660 ; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550 , 6 Sup. Ct. 501, 29 L. Ed. 729 . The case must as it now stands, therefore, be remanded.

It is suggested that the ad damnum may be raised in the state court, *53 and that the matter in dispute is what it may be raised to; and if not that the right to remove a removable case might be kept away by keeping the ad damnum too small till after the time for removal should elapse. But the right to remove attaches for the first time whenever any change in the proceedings makes it so, and it may then be availed of. No. Pacific R. R. Co. v. Austin, 135 U. S. 315 , 10 Sup. Ct. 758, 34 L. Ed. 218 ; Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co., 169 U. S. 92 , 18 Sup. Ct. 264, 42 L. Ed. 673 .

Motion granted, and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 21916: 11923: 11954: 119132026peak 1913 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harley v. Firemen's Fund Ins.245 F. 471 (W.D. Wash. 1913)
  2. Martin v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co.184 S.W. 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 1916)
  3. Trullinger v. Rosenblum125 F. Supp. 758 (E.D. Ark. 1954)
  4. Collins v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co.204 F. 134 (D. Idaho 1913)
  5. El Paso & Southwestern Co. v. Riddle287 F. 173 (W.D. Tex. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Trullinger v. Rosenblum125 F. Supp. 758 (E.D. Ark. 1954)
  2. El Paso & Southwestern Co. v. Riddle287 F. 173 (W.D. Tex. 1923)
  3. Martin v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co.184 S.W. 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 1916)
  4. Harley v. Firemen's Fund Ins.245 F. 471 (W.D. Wash. 1913)
  5. Collins v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co.204 F. 134 (D. Idaho 1913)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 169 U.S. 92 (1898) 438
Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550 (1886) 232
Gordon v. Longest, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 97 (1842) 105
Kanouse v. Martin, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 198 (1854) 75
Northern Pac. R.R. v. Austin, 135 U.S. 315 (1890) 26
Cole v. Goodall, 39 Vt. 400 (1867) 2

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