Case Name: OLIVER v. IOWA CENT. RY. CO. et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-05-31
Citations: 102 F. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: OLIVER v. IOWA CENT. RY. CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 102
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
OLIVER v. IOWA CENT. RY. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Iowa, C. D.
May 31, 1900.)
'Removal op Causes — Divki sity ov Citizenship — Time for Filing Petition.
A cause is not removable on tlie ground of diversity of citizenship, where ihe petition therefor was not filed until three months after an answer was due from the petitioning defendant in the state court, and such petition, when filed, failed to disclose the citizenship of a co-defendant, or the existence of a separable controversy.
On Motion to Bemand to State Court.
Bolton, McCoy <& Bolton, for plaintiff.
G-eo. W. Seevers, for defendants.
Diverse citizenship as ground for removal, see notes to Shipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249, and Mason v. Dullaghan, 27 C. C. A. 298.

Opinion:
SHIR AS, District Judge.
From the record in this case it appears that the original petition was filed in the state court on the 30th of September, 1899, to which petition the Iowa Central Eailway Company was the sole defendant. On the (Sth of October following an amendment to the petition was filed, making one Richard Pender a co-defendant to the action, and on the 14th of October an answer on behalf of Pender was filed. On the 15th day of January, 1900, a petition for removal of the case to the United States circuit court was filed on behalf of the railway company on the ground of diverse citizenship. In this petition no reference is made to the defendant Pen-der, nor is it shown in any way what his residence and citizenship are, nor is it averred that there exists in the case a separable controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant railway company. Furthermore, the action was brought to the October term, 1899, of the state court, the answer from defendant being due on October 10th; whereas, the petition for removal was not filed until January loth. The state court rightly refused to grant the order of removal under these circumstances. The motion to remand to the state court is therefore granted.