CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


CHICAGO, R.I. & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. SCHWYHART, 227 U. S. 184 (1913)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 227 U. S. 184 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago, R.I. & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U.S. 184 (1913)

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Schwyhart

No. 132

Argued January 21, 22, 1913

Decided February 3, 1913

227 U.S. 184

Syllabus

Whether there was a joint liability of defendants sued jointly for negligence is a matter of state law, and this Court will not go behind the decision of the highest court of the state to which the question can go. Southern Railway Co. v. Miller, 217 U. S. 209. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 227 U. S. 185

The motive of the plaintiff in joining defendants, taken by itself, does not affect the right to remove. If there is a joint liability, he has a right to enforce it, whatever his reason may be. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413.

The fact that the resident defendant joined in a suit with a rich nonresident corporation is poor does not affect the case if the cause of action against them actually be joint.

Whether or not a cause of action was stated against the resident defendant is a question of state law, and where the verdict went against that defendant and was affirmed by the highest court of the state to which it could go, this Court takes the fact as established.

The fact that the declaration was amended after the petition to remove had been denied held immaterial where, as in this case, it merely made the original cause of action more precise.

On the question of removal, this Court need not consider more than whether there was a real intention to get a joint judgment, and whether the record showed colorable ground for it when the removal was denied.

145 Mo.App. 332 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the right of separate removal by a nonresident railway company sued jointly with a resident defendant by an employee for damages for negligence, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 227 U. S. 192





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED