HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
KINNEARD
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.
Plaintiffs sued multiple insurance companies on three separate fire insurance policies in Kansas state court, and the case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; the federal circuit court consolidated the three cases for trial over the defendants' objections, resulting in a judgment against two of the insurance companies. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the value of the matter in dispute was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and the case did not involve a constitutional question or federal right necessary to invoke the Court's appellate authority.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
John Kinneard, Lucia M. Laird, W.
II. Williams, G.
H. Embry and Susan M. Phillips brought suit in the District Court of Franklin County,. Kansas, against the Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., against the Western Insurance Company, of Toronto, Canada, and against the Hanover Fire Insurance Company and the Citizens’ Fire Insurance Company óf New York, upon three several policies of insurance, for $2500 each, which three cases were transferred, in October, 1886; on the ground of diverse citizenship, to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, .where they,discontinued as to Lucia M. Laird and G.
H. Embry, leaving as plaintiffs the defendants in error here.’ Upon the 12th of Decémber, 1887, the court ordered, the defendants severally objecting and excepting, that the cases be consolidated for trial, and they were accordingly tried together, separate verdicts being returned in favor of the. Phoenix Insurance Company ; against the Western Insurance Company for $1847.88; and against the Hanover and Citizens’ Companies for $2067.32; and judgments were severally rendered thereon-. To reverse the judgment against the latter this writ of error was prosecuted, which defendants in error now move to dismiss.
It is contended on behalf of plaintiffs in error that the three cases were independent and different from each other, both as to the grounds of' action and as to the defences, the plaintiffs' only being the same and the losses occasioned by the same fire; that the Circuit Court, in consolidating them, abused the discretion reposed in it under § 921' of the Revised Statutes, which provides that “ when causes of a like nature or relative to the same question aré pending before a court of the' United States or of any Territory, the court may make such orders and rules concerning proceedings therein as maybe conformable to the usages of courts for avoiding unnecessary costs or delay in the administration of justice, and may consolidate said causes when it appears reasonable to do so,” and that thereby the plaintiffs in error were deprived of due process of law, that is, of a trial by jury according to the settled course of judicial proceedings in like cases.
But the action of the court in refusing plaintiffs in error a separate trial is not open to review upon this writ of error, since it appears that the value of the matter in dispute is insufficient to give this court. jurisdiction; nor can the writ be maintained, as argued, under subdivision 4 of § 699, of the Revised Statutes, because this judgment was not rendered in a “ case brought on account of the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” Cogswell v. Fordyce, 128 U. S. 391.
The motion must be granted and the writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drybrough v. Ware. in re Bavarian Brewing Co., Inc., 111 F.2d 548 (6th Cir. 1940)…roceedings of the trial court as may be necessary for the proper presentation of the points on 'which he intends to rely [Rule 75(d)], and for lack of such record the court has the power to dismiss the appeal. Hill v. Railroad Company, 129 U.S. 170, 9 S.Ct. 269, 32 L.Ed. 651; Keene v. Whittaker, 13 Pet. 459, 38 U.S. 459, 10 L.Ed. 246. This power, however, should not be exercised generally unless the omission arose from negligence or indifference of appellant and, where good faith is shown, appellee will be…
-
Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (U.S. 2018)…. any ground for a distinction as to the right of appeal from a decree as entered in these cases from that which exists where the proceedings have been distinct and separate throughout." Rich, 12 How., at 353 ; see Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Kinneard, 129 U.S. 176, 177, 9 S.Ct. 269, 32 L.Ed. 653 (1889) (evaluating appellate jurisdiction over a writ of error in one of several consolidated cases without reference to the others). We elaborated on the principles underlying consolidation in Mutual Life Insurance…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Cogswell v. Fordyce, 128 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1888)