Gableman v. Peoria &C. Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 335 (1900)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 179 U.S. 328, click here.

Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur and Evansville Railway Company

No. 438

Submitted November 16, 1900
Decided December 10, 1900
179 U.S. 335

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

An action against a receiver of a state corporation is not a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States simply by reason of the fact that such receiver was appointed by a court of the United States.

The certificate in this case was as follows:

This action was brought originally in the Superior Court for Vanderburg County, in the State of Indiana, on the 28th of August, 1897, by the plaintiff in error, a citizen of Indiana, against the defendants in error, to recover damages for personal injuries said to have been sustained by the plaintiff in error in March, 1897, through the negligence of the defendants in error in the operation of a railway train and the failure to properly operate the gates at a railway crossing. The defendant railway company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, and the defendant, George Colvin, is a citizen of Indiana. The defendant, Edward O. Hopkins, was, at the time the injuries were received and the suit was commenced, receiver of the defendant railway company by appointment of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and was at the time of the injuries, in the sole control and management of the railway company, having an office in Vanderburg County, in the State of Indiana, the defendant Colvin being in his employment as a locomotive engineer and as his servant operating the engine at the time of the injury. The record does not show that the duties of the defendant Colvin extended to the operation or maintenance of the gates at the railway crossing. The record does not disclose the place of residence, or the citizenship of Hopkins as an individual.

In due time after the commencement of the suit, the defendant, Edward O. Hopkins, receiver, on his sole petition, removed the cause into the Circuit Court for the District of Indiana upon the ground that it was a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. A motion to remand was entered by the plaintiff in error and overruled by the Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, and at the trial subsequently, a verdict was, by direction of the court, returned for the defendants in error.

The questions of law upon which this court desires the advice and instruction of the Supreme Court are:

(1) Did the circuit court of the United States for the District of Indiana have, upon these facts, jurisdiction to try the cause?

(2) Was the cause one properly removable into the circuit court of the United States?