MASSACHUSETTS AND SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
CANE CREEK TOWNSHIP
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.
A construction company sued a township to recover possession of bonds held by a third-party deposit company, but the Supreme Court held that the deposit company was a necessary and indispensable party to the suit, and because it was a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff, the case could not be removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The Court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brewer,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The plea to the jurisdiction should have been sustained. The substantial object of the suit was to obtain possession of the bonds. The Deposit and Trust Company was the party in possession, and, although it claimed no interest in the bonds as against the plaintiff and its codefendant, yet possession could not be enforced in favor of the plaintiff except by a decree against it. Where the object of an action or suit is to recover the possession of real or personal property, the one in possession is a necessary and indispensable (and not a formal) party. The case of Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U. S. 56, is decisive on this point. In that case a suit was commenced in a state court in Missouri to recover possession of certain bonds in the custody of the Union Savings Association. There were several defendants, among them one Montague, and an intervenor, Oswego township, who, claiming the bonds, removed the case on the ground of diverse citizenship to the Federal court. Such removal was adjudged to be erroneous, this court holding that “the Union Savings Association, being the bailee or trustee of the bonds, was a necessary and indispensable party to the relief sought by the petition, and that defendant, being a citizen of the same State with the plaintiff, there was no right of removal on the part of Montague, or of the intervening defendant, the Oswego township, on the ground that the Union Savings Association was a formal, .unnecessary, or nominal party.”
Further comment is not required. The decree of the Circuit Court must be
Reversed, and the ease remanded, with instructions to sustain the flea, and to dismiss the Mil for wemt of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salem Tr. Co. v. Mfrs'. Fin. Co., 264 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1924)…unnecessary and dispensable party, will not be considered. Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 589; Bacon v. Rives, 106 U. S. 99, 104; Ex parte Nebraska, supra. The cases of Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U. S. 56, and Construction Co. v. Cane Creek, 155 U. S. 283, do not support the contention that this case was not properly removed to the federal court. These cases hold that where the object of the suit is to recover possession of personal property the one in possession is a necessary and indispensable, and…
-
Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 277 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1928)
-
Calcote v. Tex. Pac. Coal & OIL Co., 157 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1946)…21 L.Ed. 938; Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563, 22 L.Ed. 184; Central R. of N. J v. Mills, 113 U.S. 249, 5 S.Ct. 456, 2S L.Ed. 949; Wilson v. Oswego Tp„ 151 U.S. 56, 14 S.Ct. 259, 38 L.Ed. 70; Massachusetts & Southern Const. Co. v. Cane Creek Tp., 155 U.S. 283, 15 S.Ct. 91, 39 L.Ed. 152; California v. Southern Pac. Co., 157 U.S. 229, 15 S.Ct. 591, 39 L.Ed. 683; State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158, 42 S.Ct. 261, 66 L. Ed. 531; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. City, of Parkersburg, 268 U.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Oswego Twp., 151 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1894)