Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1908-01-22

suits against interstate corporations
1t has been The policy of railroads TO
transfer suits brought against them
from the local to the federal courts
wherever possible, and many suits
have been brought By claimants for
only 1899 in order to prevent the
transfer of the case to the federal
.court-the latter only assuming juris-
diction in suits where $4,000 or more
is claimed.
The supreme court of the United
States recently handed down a deci-
sion in the case of Patch, administra-
tor, plaintiff in error, VS.. Wabash Rail-
road company, defendant in error
which went up to that court direct
from the circuit court of the United
States, at Springfield, that will here
after prevent removal of cases from
state courts to the federal court, by
consolidated interstate corporations.
on the claim of diverse citizenship
when the suit is in any of the states
vi the OilSliI Vi SuCll Y. he
question had never before been pre-
scented to a federal court of review.
upon issue joined; and the companies
therefore continued to remove. The
supreme court now disposes of it, adj
versely to the corporations. by hold
ing that in each of the states of its
origin such a company is a citizen of
that state. and therefore without right
to remove on showing of diverse
citizenship.
Removals are sought for the pur-
rose of securing advantage of the fell
low-servant rules which obtain in the
| federal courts. The Patch case is
Illustrative Patch brought suit to re,
cover for the death of his intestate,
Charles w. MaXon, a locomotive engi-
neer, who was killed i'll a collision
caused by the mistake of a telegraph
operator. By rule of law in the fed
eral court, telegraph operators and
locomotive engineers employed on the
same line are fellow-servants. and
| there can be no recovery of damages
from the company for injury to one
caused by error of the other. The
judge would be compelled to direct a
verdict for the defendant. In the state
courts, a different rule obtains. The
question is there left to the jury. I'M
der instructions that if the employe
at fault and the employee injured were
so associated that they could have
| exercised a restraining influence on
each other, promOtive of caution. they
were fellOw-servants otherwise, not
Consolidated interstate corporations
have heretofore procured removal on
the ground that the company was in
cOrporated- in another state. Some
times the claim has been that the com
pany was a citizen only of the other
state. And sometimes the jurisdiction
of the federal court has been sustained
on the ground that it was also a citizen
of the other state. The supreme
court of the United States now denies
the right to remove. on the ground
of diverse citizenship, in any of the
state of the origin of the company
The result will be to throw upon the
corporations the burden of paying 70,
many a loss by personal injury, which
heretofore would have been thrown or
the employee.
The case was particularly interest
ing in that the defendant sought tC
Iprevent the plaintiff from further pros
ecuting the action-even to the eX
tent of pleading to the jurisdiction o.
the federal court-because the plain
tiff said in his plea to the jurisdiction
after removal. that he was a either
of another state. viz, Ohio. And the
trial court, agreeing with the defend
ant company, held that inasmuch as
the plaintiff had said in his plea tina
he was a citizen of Ohio, it followed