The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1914-04-05

ately after the late war, which power
| fully excited the people of different
states, and, in many instances, engen-
dered bitter enmities, satisfied con-
gress that further legislation was re-
quired fully to protect litigants against
| influences of that character 1t there
fore provided, by the act of March 2,
1857, Ia Stat at L.. 55S, greater IA
cilitieS for the removal of cases in
VOlving controversies between citizens
to federal court, when it appeared
that such influences existed"
Corporation Practice.
The supposed reason for the removal
from a state court to a federal court
was the local passion and prejudice
that might be inferred to exist against
a nonresident, but the judge of the
federal court is required to reside in
the district of which he is the judge.
Jurors in that court must come from
the district of which he is the judge,
and are often from one county. The
defendant. therefore, is in truth and in
fact not avoiding the prejudice which
the statute, it was said, was passed to
avoid. Corporations frequently incor-
porate in a state where they never ex-
pect to do any business 4AHorder that
they may have the right. when sued
in a state where they expectto do, and
are doing, all Of their business, to re-
move the cause to the federal courts.
which, as every lawyer knows. in
many Instances, become shelter to
these defendants. For instance. on
January 6. 1902, the United States SUI
preme court held that IAN insurance
company cannot be deemed to have
waived a condition in policy of fire
insurance rendering it void in case
other insurance had been or should be
agreement endorsed thereon or at
tached thereto
This decision has been repudiated
by a great majority of the state su-
cases were permitted to remain in the
state courts the plaintiff would be able
to recover, but when it is removed to
"a United States court the plaintiffs
cause of action is at an end.
Common Carrier Liability
In both state and federal courts 1t
is held that common carrier can
not lawfully Sttpulate against it's own
negligence; therefore in bills of lad
ing where the company stpulateS
against liability for loss by fire, both
courts will look to see whether the
company is negligent. On May 16,
1904. the United States supreme court
held that when the plaintiff shows the
destruction of goods by fire in the
possession of common carrier the
burden does not shift upon the COM
pany to show that 1t was free from
negligence but that the plaintiff must
go further and actually establish the
negligence of the company. This de-
cision is repudiated by nearly all the
state supreme courts, the state SUI
preme courts generally holding that
when the plaintiff has shown the de-
struction of the goods by fire the bur
den then shifts upon the company to
show that it was free from fault.
Again, the United States supreme
court has decided that when a viola
ton is fixed in bill of lading upon
goods shipped that the plaintiff in
suing for them is limited to the va1ua-
ton stated in the bill of lading. while
the state courts almost all hold that
the plaintiff would still have the right
to prove the actual value, regardless
of that stated in the bill of lading.
In the first instance the United
States supreme court decided that a
legislature fixing the passenger rate
to be charged in the state was the
one TO determine whether the rate
fixed is or Is not reasonable. but, later
on. by gradual trend Of judicial de-
cision, the federal court assumed this
right itself. and state officers were en-
Joined here and there from putting
into force state law, and there has
been, by such acts, resentment ere
ated against the federal court from
Wisconsin to Florida
The federal court has very recently
decided that from the same point and
upon the same kind of commodity, the
railroad may make different rates
where one shipment is for further
transportation by water, and the other
Is not.
States Being Reduced.
The federal courts in the trial OF
causes are not bound to follow the
procedure prescribed by that state in
which the court is sitting: neither are
they. in many instances, required to
follow the substantive law of the
-
DON'T SUFFER