Case ID: f_132/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRANE CO. v. GUANICA CENTRALE.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    September 6, 1904.)
    1. Removal or Causes — Jurisdiction oe Federal Court.
    Where a federal court is without jurisdiction of a cause on removal, it is not conferred by the acts of the plaintiff in participating in steps taken in the suit after removal.
    2. Same — Amount in Controversy — Counterclaim.
    Whether the amount of a counterclaim set up by a removing defendant may be added to the plaintiff’s claim to give the federal court jurisdiction of the cause is at least so doubtful under the authorities as to require that court to decline jurisdiction.
    ¶ 2. Jurisdiction of circuit courts as determined by the amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Lombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459.
    See Removal of Causes, vol. 42, Cent. Dig. §§ 131, 220.
    On Motion to Remand to State Court.
    E. M. Leventritt, for the motion.
    J. R. Savage, opposed.
   RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The action, which is one to recover $1,022.61 for goods sold and delivered, was brought in the city court of the city of New York. The defendant answered, setting up a counterclaim in the amount of $3,500, and removed the cause into this court. Various steps have been taken since removal, such as demand for bill of particulars, examining witnesses on commission, etc.; but if this court has no jurisdiction under the statute, that circumstance is immaterial. Broadway Ins. Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. (C. C.) 101 Fed. 507.

The single question presented here is whether, in determining what is the matter in the dispute, the amount of the counterclaim shall be added to the amount of the claim, or whether the latter only shall be considered. On this proposition there is a conflict of authority. Mc-Ginnity v. White, 3 Dill. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 8,802; Clarkson v. Manson (C. C.) 4 Fed. 257; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co. (C. C.) 44 Fed. 645. The question is, to say the least, a doubtful one, and where a substantial doubt exists as to the jurisdiction of the-federal court the cause should be remanded.

It is so ordered.