Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

153 Mass. 157

Bryan v. Richardson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 12, 1891

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1891-01-12

Contract on a judgment. Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The amount sought to be recovered was $13,956.13, which included a judgment for $13,488.03 obtained in 1884 by the plaintiff against the defendant in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and $468.10, costs of suit.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1937

2 state decisions

Relies on Stone v. Sargent · Ellis v. Atlantic & Pacific Railroad · American Finance Co. v. Bostwick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-01-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Field, C. J.

¶1It appears by the record, that at the time of the commencement of the suit, and at the time the petition for removal was filed, the plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the State of New York, and the defendant a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The suit is an action of contract on a judgment for the sum of $13,488.03 debt, and $468.10 costs of suit, which was obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The petition for removal was brought under § 2 of the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, as amended by the act of August 13, 1888.

¶2The construction we give to this section is, that where the only ground of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States is that there is a controversy between citizens of different States, and the record of the suit shows that there is but a single controversy, and but one plaintiff and one defendant, the defendant cannot remove the suit from the State court to the Circuit Court of the United States unless he is not a resident of the State in the court of which the suit was brought. Whether this is true under the third clause of this section when the suit contains separable controversies between different sets of parties, we have no occasion to consider, as the present is not such a suit. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 32 Fed. Rep. 337.

¶3It is immaterial that the suit could have been originally brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, because the jurisdiction of that court over original suits is not necessarily the same as that over suits removed from State courts. Ench jurisdiction depends upon *159the construction of the provisions of the statutes of the United States which confer it. American Finance Co. v. Bostwick, 151 Mass. 19.

¶4The question of law arising on the dismissal of the petition by the Superior Court could properly be brought to this court by bill of exceptions. Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 503. Ellis v. Atlantic & Pacific Railroad, 134 Mass. 338.

¶5It is unnecessary to consider the other objections made to the petition. Exceptions overruled.

/153/mass/157 · .json · Public domain