Case Name: LEUTZE v. BUTTERFIELD
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1877-02
Citations: 1 Abb. N. Cas. 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEUTZE v. BUTTERFIELD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's New Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 367–372

Head Matter:
LEUTZE v. BUTTERFIELD.
[Reversing decision at page 18 of this volume.]
N. Y. Common Pleas; General Term,
February, 1877.
What Causes mat be Removed to United States Circuit Court.
Under the act of 1875, —^allowing a removal of causes from the State ° courts to the United States circuit courts in certain cases,—an action in which there is a controversy between citizens of different Statea can be removed; even although, by reason of plaintiff being an assignee of one who was a citizen of the same State as defendant, the United States court could not have taken original cognizance of the action.
Appeal from a judgment.
The facts relative to the proceedings for removal are fully stated in the report at p. 18 of this vol.
After removal was denied, the cause was tried by a referee; the proceedings by defendant to remove the ac ■ tion were proved on the trial, and an exception taken to the refusal of the referee to find that this court had no jurisdiction in the premises. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.
John Henry Hull, for the appellant.
Edward D. McCarthy, for respondent.

Opinion:
Larremore, J.
The first question for consideration is necessarily that of jurisdiction. Is this court the proper tribunal for the adjudication of the rights of the parties % This depends upon the construction given to the act of Congress passed March 3, 1875 (U. S. Statutes 1875, chap. 137), entitled " An Act to determine the jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from state courts, and for other purposes." This act repeals all parts of foregoing acts inconsistent with or repugnant thereto ; and if defendant has complied with its provisions, then the trial of this action by the referee, and all proceedings subsequent thereto, were coram nonjudice. By this act (§ 1) the circuit court is given original cognizance of all suits of a civil nature when the matter in dispute exceeds $500, in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, &c. But said court shall not have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in said court if no assignment had been made, except in cases of negotiable paper. Section 2 provides that any suit of a civil nature at law or in equity now pending or hereafter brought in any State court, when the matter in dispute exceeds $500, and in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, may be removed by either party into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. It is conceded that plaintiff could not have commenced this action in the circuit court, for, as assignee of a claim other than negotiable paper, the limitation of section 1 would apply, and the court could not have cognizance of any such suit. Is this limitation applicable to actions sought to 'be removed from tlie State courts \ The learned judge who denied the application for removal held the affirmative of this proposition (1 Abbott's New Cases, 18).'
The intention of the Federal Legislature in this respect is not clearly expressed in the act itself. But section 2 gives a defendant the right to remove any suit without distinction as to the character in which the plaintiff sues, except that the parties to the controversy must be citizens of different States. The defendant was entitled as a matter of right to a change of forum (Stevens v. Phoenixlns. Co., 41 N. Y. 149; Holden v. Putnam Fire Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 1; Ayres v. Western R. R. Cor., 45 Id. 260 ; Bell v. Dix, 49 Id. 232; Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. U. S. 198 ; Gorden v. Longest, 16 Pet. 104); unless such right is controlled by the limitation above referred to, and that question should have been raised and decided in the circuit court (Bell v. Dix, supra ; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. 8. [2 Otto] 10). It involves the construction of a statute of the United States as to the jurisdiction of a Federal court, and should have been referred to that tribunal for adjudication. Defendant's application met all the requirements of the act of March 3, 1875, and a stay was thus imposed upon all further proceedings in this court. The defendant might have availed himself of the authority and direction of the substituted tribunal at an earlier stage of the action, and thus have avoided the expense and delay of a fruitless litigation ; but the cases above cited hold that the proceedings in this court are not a waiver to the objection to jurisdiction.
The judgment appealed from should be reversed.
See the section stated at length at p. 22 of this vol.
See p. 25 of this vol.