Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

144 U.S. 568

Docket No. 269.

Kellam v. Keith

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued and submitted April 1, 1892.

Decided April 11, 1892.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1892-04-11

<p>APPEAL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p> <p>This was a suit for the cancellation of a deed, and to compel a reconveyance of land, commenced in the District Court of Shawnee County in the State of Kansas. The complaint did not disclose the citizenship of the parties. The defendants, before pleading, presented a petition as follows for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States:</p> <p>“And now come the said defendants Edward P. Kellam and Cyrus K. Holliday, by Kossington, Smith & Dallas and John T. Morton, their attorneys, and represent and aver that in this action the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs and interest, the sum and value of five hundred dollars, and in fact exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of two thousand dollars, and that in this suit there is a controversy which is. wholly between citizens of different States, the said plaintiff being a citizen of the State of Nebraska and both of said defendants being citizens of the State of Kansas, and that the controversy can be fully determined as between them, the said plaintiff and said defendants.</p> <p>“ These defendants therefore ask that this cause be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the District of Kansas to be held in said district; that this court accept this petition and the bond herewith filed and proceed no further in this action, and that this cause be removed into said Circuit Court.”</p> <p>After removal the Circuit Court ordered the pleadings to be recast, whereupon the plaintiff filed a bill in equity in which the parties were described as'follows: “Morrell C. Keith, of North Platte, Nebraska, and a citizen of the State of Nebraska, brings this his bill against Edward P. Kellam; of Topeka, and a citizen of the State of-Kansas, and Cyrus K. Holliday, of Topeka, and a citizen of the State of Kansas; and thereupon your orator complains and says, etc.”</p> <p>The case then proceeded to judgment, and, a decree for the plaintiff being rendered, the defendants appealed to tbia court.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that in all cases where a final judgment or decree shall be rendered in the Circuit Court of the United States in which there shall have been a question involving the jurisdiction of the court, the party against whom the judgment or decree is rendered shall be entitled to an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to review said judgment or decree without reference to the amount of the same ; but in cases where the deCTee or judgment does not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars the Supreme Court shall not review any question raised upon the record except such question of jurisdiction.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Mattingly v. Northwestern Virginia Railroad

Relies on Stevens v. Nichols · Jackson v. Allen · La Confiance Compagnie Anonyme D'Assurance v. Hall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 8–0 · Decided 1892-04-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2004 · most notably Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant (1987), Antoinette Kinney v. Columbia Savings Loan Association (1903)

39 federal appellate · 9 district ·

190189219001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1APPEAL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.

¶2On the 'authority of Stevens y. Nichols, 130 IT. S. 230, Jackson v. Allen, 132 U. S. 27, and La Conflance Compagnie v. Hall, 137 U. S. 61, the'decree below in this case is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to *569remand it to the Circuit Court, it not appearing in the record that the diverse citizenship which was the cause of removal from the State Court existed at the commencement of the action.

¶3In such case the appellees are entitled to their costs in this court and in the Circuit Court.

¶4This was a suit for the cancellation of a deed, and to compel a reconveyance of land, commenced in the District Court of Shawnee County in the State of Kansas. The complaint did not disclose the citizenship of the parties. The defendants, before pleading, presented a petition as follows for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States:

¶5“And now come the said defendants Edward P. Kellam and Cyrus K. Holliday, by Kossington, Smith & Dallas and John T. Morton, their attorneys, and represent and aver that in this action the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs and interest, the sum and value of five hundred dollars, and in fact exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of two thousand dollars, and that in this suit there is a controversy which is. wholly between citizens of different States, the said plaintiff being a citizen of the State of Nebraska and both of said defendants being citizens of the State of Kansas, and that the controversy can be fully determined as between them, the said plaintiff and said defendants.

¶6“ These defendants therefore ask that this cause be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the District of Kansas to be held in said district; that this court accept this petition and the bond herewith filed and proceed no further in this action, and that this cause be removed into said Circuit Court.”

¶7After removal the Circuit Court ordered the pleadings to be recast, whereupon the plaintiff filed a bill in equity in which the parties were described as'follows: “Morrell C. Keith, of North Platte, Nebraska, and a citizen of the State of Nebraska, brings this his bill against Edward P. Kellam; of Topeka, and a citizen of the State of-Kansas, and Cyrus K. Holliday, of Topeka, and a citizen of the State of Kansas; and thereupon your orator complains and says, etc.”

¶8*570The case then proceeded to judgment, and, a decree for the plaintiff being rendered, the defendants appealed to tbia court.

¶9Mr. W. H. Bossi/ngton, Mr. Gha/rles Blood Smith, Mr. Everett J. Dallas and Mr. John. T. Morton, for appellants, submitted on their brief.

¶10Mr. E. S. Qumton for appellee. Mr. A. B. Qumton and Mr. A. Bergen were with him on -the brief.

/144/us/568 · .json · Public domain