Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/250/308/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-10-17 00:04:20
Document Index: 602892578

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 11', '§ 51', '§ 50', '§ 1', '§ 52', '§ 51', '§ 52', '§ 740', '§ 51', '§ 740', '§ 51', '§ 50', '§ 914', '§ 240', '§ 701', '§ 11', '§ 10', '§ 269']

Resting jurisdiction wholly on diversity of citizenship, Gress, a citizen and resident of Florida, brought, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, this action against P. D. Camp, P. R. Camp, and John M. Camp, alleging them to be citizens of Virginia and residents of that district. One of them, John M., filed a "plea to jurisdiction," asking that the suit be dismissed because he was not a citizen or resident of the district in which it was brought, but a citizen of North Carolina, resident in the Eastern district thereof. P. D. and P. R. Camp filed a separate "plea to jurisdiction" setting up the same facts, alleging that the cause of action sued on was joint and inseparable, and denying jurisdiction as to themselves also, because there was none as to John M. Camp. The pleas were overruled; the case proceeded to trial; a verdict was rendered against the three defendants, and judgment was entered thereon. Exceptions had been duly taken both by John M. and by P. D. and P. R. Camp to the decision overruling their pleas to the jurisdiction, and by the three defendants to certain ruling at the trial alleged to be erroneous, but chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 244 F.1d 1. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 245 U.S. 655.
Section 51 of the Judicial Code embodies in substance the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, 24 Stat. 552, as corrected by Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433. From the passage of the original Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789, c. 20, § 11, 1 Stat. 73, 79, until 1887, suit could be brought not only in the district of defendant's residence, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Adopting a like construction, this Court held in Smith v. Lyon, supra, that suit could not be brought in a district in which some, but not all, of the plaintiffs resided. The rule declared in Strawbridge v. Curtiss had been applied indiscriminately to plaintiffs and defendants, and after the decision in Smith v. Lyon, it was generally assumed in the lower courts that the rule there applied to plaintiffs must likewise be applied to defendants. [Footnote 1] Compare 145 U. S. 259. The same assumption appears to have been made in Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217, where the question was raised whether the resident defendant could avail himself of the objection that another defendant, who was a nonresident, was not liable to suit therein. And in Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co.,@ 218 U. S. 357, 218 U. S. 364-365, a like rule was applied, for it was there held that, although an alien defendant could be sued in any district where found, an American citizen joined with him as codefendant could not, without his consent, be sued in a district other than that of his or the plaintiff's residence.
It is said, however, that § 51, if read in connection with § 50 and in the light of their legislative history, shows that it was the intention of Congress to confer jurisdiction over all the defendants found within the district if one of them resides therein. Section 50, [Footnote 2] which embodies without substantial change the Act of February 28, 1839, c. 36, § 1, 5 Stat. 321, makes provision for enforcing a cause of action which exists against several persons, although one of them is neither an inhabitant of nor found within the district in which suit is brought and does not voluntarily appear. It does so by permitting the court to entertain jurisdiction without prejudice to the rights of the party not regularly served nor voluntarily appearing. The argument is that, in order to give chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On the other hand, § 52 of the Judicial Code makes it clear that the construction contended for by defendant is unsound. It provides that, where a state contains more than one district, a suit (not of a local nature) against a single defendant must be brought in the district where he resides, "but if there are two or more defendants, residing in different districts of the state, it may be chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
brought in either district." We thus have an express declaration by Congress that, under one particular set of circumstances, a codefendant may be sued in a district in which he does not reside. "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius." This section follows directly after that which contains the general prohibition against suing a defendant in a district other than that in which he or the plaintiff resides, and constitutes one of the specified exceptions to the general prohibition. It shows, therefore, that the prohibition of § 51 expresses the deliberate purpose of Congress that a person shall not be compelled to submit to suit in the federal district court in a state within which neither he nor the plaintiff resides, although a codefendant may reside therein. The history of § 52 confirms this conclusion. It is substantially a reenactment of § 740 of the Revised Statutes. After the passage of the Act of 1887-1888 restricting the jurisdiction of the federal courts, considerable doubt arose as to whether the provisions of that act now contained in § 51 of the Judicial Code did not repeal § 740 of the Revised Statutes. Compare Petri v. Creelman Lumber Co., 199 U. S. 487. [Footnote 3] Congress reenacted in the Judicial Code this provision expressly permitting, in states having more than one district, all defendants resident within the state to be sued in any district thereof in which one of them resides, while it made no similar provision for the case where the several defendants reside in different states. If Congress, in reenacting the provisions of § 51, had intended that it should establish a rule with reference to defendants resident in different states contrary to the construction placed by the overwhelming weight of authority upon chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Second. The plea to the jurisdiction filed by P. D. and P. R. Camp was properly overruled. The objection was based wholly on the fact that John M. Camp was not suable within the district. This is an exemption from suit personal to the nonresident of the district. A resident codefendant cannot avail himself of the objection. [Footnote 4] If John M. had been an indispensable party, the failure to obtain jurisdiction over him would, of course, be fatal to the maintenance of the suit. Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280. But he was not an indispensable party, and, under § 50 of the Judicial Code, the trial court might, if it had sustained John M.'s plea to the jurisdiction, have rendered judgment against the other two defendants, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is, however, contended that the Virginia practice would require a reversal of the judgment as against all defendants, and that the Conformity Act (Revised Statutes, § 914) requires that the state practice be followed. If such were the Virginia practice, which is denied, it chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
would not be binding on this Court. The Conformity Act, by its express terms, refers only to proceedings in district (and formerly circuit) courts, and has no application to appellate proceedings either in this Court or in the circuit court of appeals. Such proceedings are governed entirely by the acts of Congress, the common law, and the ancient English statutes. 48 U. S. 844; Boogher v. Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 90, 103 U. S. 95; Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544; St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 134, 154 U. S. 153; Francisco v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 149 F.3d 4, 358-359; United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 F.6d 3, 664. In cases coming from federal courts, the Supreme Court is given by statute full power to enter such judgment or order as the nature of the appeal or writ of error (or certiorari, § 240 of the Judicial Code) requires. Revised Statutes, § 701. Circuit Court of Appeals Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 11, 26 Stat. 826, 829. See also § 10 of the same act. Compare Ballew v. United States, 160 U. S. 187, 160 U. S. 198 et seq.@ And, by Act of February 26, 1919, c. 48, 40 Stat. 1181, amending § 269 of the Judicial Code, the duty is especially enjoined of giving judgment in appellate proceedings "without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties."
Fourth. P. D. and P. R. Camp contend, however, that the judgment against them should be reversed also on the ground that there was error in the instructions as to the measure of damages. The contention must be examined, as the whole case is here on writ of certiorari and the objection was properly saved. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight, 217 U. S. 257, 217 U. S. 267; Delk v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co., 220 U. S. 580, 220 U. S. 588. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Gress was the owner of the entire capital stock of the Morgan Lumber Company, a corporation which held the title to sawmill properties in Florida. The three defendants Camp were the owners of valuable timber lands near the mill. By contract under seal dated August 18, 1913, the Camps agreed to join with Gress in organizing a corporation under the name of Levy County Lumber Company, to which Gress would convey the sawmill properties, which the parties valued at $125,000, and the Camps would convey the timber lands, which they valued at $375,000; that Gress should receive, in exchange for the mill properties, five-eighteenths of the stock in the new company, and the Camps, in exchange for the lands, thirteen-eighteenths of the stock, and that the parties should in that proportion finance the company. Gress was ready and willing and able to perform his part of the contract, and the Camps broke it by definitely refusing to perform. The only question in the case seriously controverted was the amount of damages recoverable. There was evidence that, by reason of the breach of contract, which resulted in depriving the mill of its timber supply, its value depreciated heavily. The trial judge charged the jury that among the elements of damages recoverable was the amount of the depreciation in the market value of the mill between the date of the contract and the date of the breach. The objection made to this ruling was based wholly on the ground that, as the mill properties were vested in the Morgan Lumber Company, Gress could not recover more than nominal damages, although he owned all of its stock. The contention is that, before it could be determined whether plaintiff, as owner of the stock of the Morgan Lumber Company, sustained any damages by reason of the depreciation in value of the mill property, an accounting and settlement of the Morgan Lumber Company's affairs would be necessary, and it is urged that the lower court, in rejecting a ruling to that chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The decision of the circuit court of appeals denying the contention that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only thirteen-eighteenths of the loss due to the depreciation chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
E.g., Turk v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 218 F.3d 5, 316 (Sixth Circuit); Excelsior Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Brown, 74 F.3d 1 (Fourth Circuit); Revett v. Clise, 207 F.6d 3, 676 (Wash.); Schultz v. Highland Gold Mines Co., 158 F.3d 7, 340 (Or.); Tice v. Hurley, 145 F.3d 1 (Ky.); Lengel v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 110 Fed.19, 21 (N.J.); Bensinger Self-Adding Cash Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co., 42 F. 81 (Mo.). But see Jennings v. Smith, 232 F.9d 1, 925 (Ga.); Rawitzer v. Wyatt, 40 F.6d 9 (Cal.).
See also Doscher v. United States Pipe Line Co., 185 F.9d 9; John D. Park & Sons Co. v. Bruen, 133 F.8d 6; New Jersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Chormann, 105 F.5d 2; Goddard v. Mailler, 80 F.4d 2; East Tennessee v. & G. R. Co. v. Atlanta & F. R. Co., 49 F.6d 8.
Tice v. Hurley, 145, F. 391, 392; Chesapeake & O. Coal Agency Co. v. Fire Creek Coal & Coke Co., 119 F.9d 2; Smith v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 64 F. 1, 2; Jewett v. Bradford Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 45 F.8d 1; Bensinger Self-Adding Cash Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co., 42 F. 81, 82.