ANDERSON
v.
UNITED REALTY COMPANY

U.S. | 1911-12-04
No. 27
222 U.S. 164 Supreme Court of the United States (1911) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 56 L. Ed. 144 · 32 S. Ct. 50 · SCDB 1911-003 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1767
Cited by 21 cases

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.

Synopsis

Anderson filed suit in state court against United Realty Company and others, but United Realty filed a removal petition to federal court before judgment; Anderson then obtained a dismissal of his action against United Realty in the state court in consideration of withdrawing the removal petition, and proceeded to trial against the remaining defendants without objecting to the state court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that Anderson waived his right to challenge the state court's jurisdiction by his conduct in dismissing the action against the removing defendant and proceeding to trial without protest, and therefore could not later assert that the state court lacked authority to proceed.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
By Mr. Justice Lurton.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court.

By Mr. Justice Lurton.

The single question for our consideration upon this writ of error concerns the jurisdiction of the state court to proceed with the action' after one of the original defendants had-filed its petition and.bond for removal to, the Circuit Court of the United States.

If, as we shall assume, there was a separable controversy and the requisite diversity of citizenship, it was the duty of the state court 4o accept the petition and bond and proceed no further in the case. A trial and judgment thereafter would be coram non judice, unless its jurisdiction over the cause and the parties was in some way restored. National Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118; Trac tibn Company v. Mining Company, 196 U. S. 239, 253. But we are of opinion that the plaintiff in error is not in a position to now assert that the state court’s subsequent exercise of jurisdiction was without, authority. When the removal petition and bond were filed, the plaintiff, before any order was made in the state court or the record filed - in the United States court, had an order entered in the state court dismissing his action against the removing defendant and certain others having like ground of removal, the order reciting that in consideration of such dismissal the petition for removal'was withdrawn. Thereafter the cause was proceeded with against the remaining defendants without the hint of any objection by either the plaintiff or the remaining defendants. Upon the contrary, many steps were taken and a long jury trial had, resulting in a verdict, and judgment for the defendants. Not until the cause was carried to the Ohio Circuit Court by appeal of the plaintiff was there any objection made to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The state court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter. It recovered jurisdiction over the remaining parties by action and conduct equivalent to. a formal waiver of new process and new pleadings or any formal remander by the United States court.

The Tugman Case,, cited above, does not help the plaintiff in error. The defendant whose right to remoye had been erroneously Jdenied was held not to have waived his right to remove by subsequently consenting to a reference of the case to a referee, or by defending the suit both before the referee and the court without protesting. This court said (p. 123):

“When the State court adjudged that it had authority to proceed, the company was entitled to regard the decision as final, so far as that tribunal was concerned, and . was not bound, in order, to maintain the right of removal, to protest at subsequent stages of the trial against its exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, such a course would scarcely have been respectful to the State court, after its ruling upon the-point of jurisdiction had been made.”

Ifv on the other hand, he had thereafter invoked the court’s jurisdiction in his own behalf, he would not have been permitted later to deny it. Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Eastin, 214 U. S. 153; Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U. S. 64, 73; C. & O. Ry. v. McDonald, 214 U. S. 191.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Int'l Shoe Co. v. Hewitt, 123 Fla. 587 (Fla. 1936)
    …ase by invoking the jurisdiction of the state court, after removal of the cause to the federal court had been refused, was a waiver of the objections to the court’s refusal to remove the cause to the federal court. See Anderson v. United Realty Co., 222 U. S. 164, 32 Sup. Ct. 50, 56 L. Ed. 144. This action is brought by the administrator for the wrongful death of the decedent, under Sections 7047-7048 C. G. L. The Trial court permitted plaintiff, over objection, to prove funeral expenses of $553.00. The rul…
    1 / 2
  • Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1912)
    …n which it was decided by the lower court and affirmed on writ of error by the Supreme Court of Ohio that James took a fee subject to be defeated [*444] only by his leaving no lineal descendant. Anderson v. United Realty Co., 79 Ohio St. 23. S. C., 222 U. S. 164. The judgment of the lower court was pleaded, but it was held by the Circuit Court of Appeals after the affirmance by the Supreme Court that its own previous decision was the law of the case and that it was not at liberty to reverse the judgment eve…
  • Bryant v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 92 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1937)
    …t its judgments are brutum fulmen. National Steamship Company v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118, 122, 1 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed. 87; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., supra, 196 U.S. 239, 25 S.Ct. 251, 49 L.Ed. 462; Anderson v. United Realty Co., 222 U.S. 164, 32 S.Ct. 50, 56 L.Ed. 144. To enjoin further proceedings is therefore not strictly to enjoin an action in the state court, for the action has passed to the federal court; it is not therefore a violation of section 379 of title 28, U.S.C.A. The sit…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw