NATIONAL ACC. SOC. v. SPIRO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. No. :WO.
RBMOVAL OF CAUBlI:II-ApPEARANOE-EFFBCT OF PETITION TO REMOVE.
January 7, 1896.)
An action was commenced agaInst a New York corporation, In a Tenuessee state court, by servIce on one M., "as agent and adjuster" for such corporation. The defendant filed its petition for the removal of the cause to the federal court, without in any way limiting the effect ot its appearance in so doing, and afterwards tiled a plea in abatement· on the ground that M. was not its agent. Held, that the question whether the defendant, by filing its petition for removal, unaccompanied by a plea. in abatement, and without restricting the purpose of its appearance, waived the objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of service, should be certified to the supreme court.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States. for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Cooper & Davis (McBurney & McBurney, of counsel), for plaintiff in error. Ingersoll & Peyton, for defendant in error. Before TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges, and SEVERENS, District Judge.
To this, the plaintiff (now defendant in error) replied as follows:
"And plaintiff, for replication to defendant's plea in abatement, says H. D. McBurney, on whom the writ of summons in this case was served on 17th of April, 1894, was at that time an agent of the defendant; and this she is ready to verify. Wherefore she prays jUdgment," etc.
The issue thus formed was duly submitted to a jury, who found for the plaintiff, and assessed her damages at $5,055. In the determination of the questions arising upon errors assigned, it becomes necessary to determine and declare the effect of the appearance in tb,e state court, and the filing there of the petition for a removal above referred to. This court, in the case of Railway v. Brow, 13 Co C. :A. 222, 65 Fed. 941, held that the filing of a petition removal <)f.a cause from a state court to the circuit court of the United States, without then objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant, or in any way restricting the appearance asalohe for the purpose of removing the cause, was a general appearance, and that it was too late, after such removal, to urge, in the federal <;ourt, that that court had no jurisdiction over the defendant by virtue of the process issued. Subsequently the supreme court granted a writ of certiorari removing that suit into the supreme. court; and the case is now pending in. the supreme court, and undecided. After the decision of the case of Railway v. Brow, the supreme court, in Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, held that where a petition for removal is filed in the .state court for the· sole purpose of presenting a petition for removal, and that purpose is specifically stated, and the appearance restricted, the defendant does not thereby enter a general appea:rance or waive the right to object to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of summons. In the same case the court reserved the question as to the effect of a petition in general terms for removal, "without specifying and restricting the purpose of the defendant's appearance in the state court," as a waiver of objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. In view of this state of the law, this court is in doubt as to how it should decide the point thus reserved, and therefore certifies to the supreme coqrt this question: Does a defendant, by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the United States court, in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the summons?
BREYFOGLE et ale v. WALSH et ale
(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. December 17, 1894.)
llMUNoTION-rnEQUITABLE CONTRACT-BANKS AND BANKING-CORPORATIONS.
A bill whicp seeks to restrain the sale by a bank of property pledged as collateral security to a note. discounted by it, on the ground that the Pl'esident of the bank secretly agreed that he would see to the payment