Case Name: McNAUL v. WEST INDIAN SECURITIES CORPORATION et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-04-11
Citations: 178 F. 308
Docket Number: 
Parties: McNAUL v. WEST INDIAN SECURITIES CORPORATION et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 178
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
McNAUL v. WEST INDIAN SECURITIES CORPORATION et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
April 11, 1910.)
Removal of Causes (§ 46 ) — Diversity op Citizenship — Removal by One op Several Dependants.
A cause is not removable by one of several defendants on tbe ground of diversity of citizenship alone, where no separable controversy is alleged or shown.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Removal of Causes, Cent. Dig. §§ 90, 91; Dec. Dig. § 46. ]
Action by Ellery S- McNaul against the West Indian Securities Corporation and others. On motion to remand to state court.
Motion granted.
Steuart' & Steuart, for plaintiff.
Wing & Russell, for defendants.
For other oases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to (late, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
WARD, Circuit Judge.
The petition for removal alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of New York, that the petitioner is a citizen and resident of the state of Massachusetts, and that the other defendants who have been served with process are citizens of Delaware and New Jersey. The only ground suggested for removal is that the controversy is wholly between citizens of different states. As all the defendants have not joined in the petition for removal, the cause must be remanded.
The petitioner contends that the practice in this circuit is to permit one defendant to remove, and cites Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Champlin, 21 Fed. 85, and Garner v. Second National Bank, 66 Fed. 369. These were cases where a separable contest existed between the plaintiff and one or more of the defendants, which could be fully determined as between them. No such ground is relied upon in the petition, nor is any separable controversy specified. Smith v. Horton, 7 Fed. 270; Sharkey v. Mill Co., 93 Fed. 425; Gates Iron Works v. J. E. Pepper Co., 98 Fed. 449.
Motion granted.