PUTNAM & ANOTHER
v.
INGRAHAM
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Putnam sued Ingraham and other defendants jointly in Connecticut state court on claims of joint promises and undertakings. The defendants, who were not Connecticut citizens, removed the case to federal court, but the Supreme Court affirmed the order remanding it to state court, holding that a suit brought on joint causes of action cannot be divided into separate controversies for purposes of removal jurisdiction simply because defendants file separate answers or deny joint liability.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mi?.. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts as above recited, he continued:
We are unable to distinguish this case materially from that of The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Ide, just decided. The suit is brought against all the defendants jointly to recover upon what are alleged to be their joint promises and undertakings. The defendants-, who are not citizens of Connecticut-, have filed a separate answer in which they deny their liability altogether, and claim besides that, if liable at all on part of the account sued for, it is not jointly with the defendant Morgan. This is their separate defence to the joint suit which Ingraham has elected to bring against them and Morgan upon what he claims to be the .joint contracts of all the defendants.
In Connecticut, as in. New York, “judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants,” and in addition to this the court may, in Connecticut, “ determine the ultimate fights of, the parties on each side as between themselves and grant to the defendant any affirmative relief he may be entitled tó.” But this, as we have said in the case just decided, does not make a joint contract several, nor divide.a joint suit into separate parts. The suit is still one and indivisible for the purposes of removal.
The fact that Morgan has not answered but is - in default is unimportant. The suit is still on joint causes of action, and the plaintiff, if he sustains the allegations of his complaint at the trial, will be entitled to a joint judgment against all the defendants. The default places the parties in no different position with reference to a removal than they would occupy if Morgan bad answered and set up an entirely different defence from that of the other defendants. A separate controversy is not introduced into the case by separate defences to the same cause of action.
As the petitioning defendants have asked no affirmative relief either against the plaintiff or their co-defendant, no question can arise under the rule of practice in Connecticut which allows the court to determine the ultimate rights of the parties on each side as between themselves. In the present case the only controversy is as to the right of the plaintiff to recover against the defendants.
The order to remand is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Starin & Another v. New York, 115 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1885)…d that is, the violation of the exclusive ferry rights of the plaintiff by the uñited efforts of all the defendants. The case is, therefore, within the rule established in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41, that a separate defence by one defendant in a joint suit against him and others upon a joint or a joint and several cause of action, does not create a separate controversy so as to entitle that defendant, if the necess…
-
Wilson v. Oswego Twp., 151 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1894)…lt, is unimportant, and placed the parties in no different position with, reference to a removal of the cause than they would have occupied if that company had answered, and either admitted or denied the rights of the plaintiffs. Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57, 59. The petition filed in the state court did not present several causes of action, some of which were against the resident defendants and others against the non-resident defendants, but embraced a single cause of action and a single ground of rel…
-
Graves v. Corbin, 132 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1890)…dants may have a separate defence to the action, but we have held many times that separate defences do not creaté separate controversies within the meaning of the removal act. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41; Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248; and Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275. The judgment sought against the Fidelity Company is incident to the main purpose of the suit; and the fact that this incident relates alone to t…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence