Document: 31 L.Ed.2d 612 92 S.Ct. 1344 405 U.S. 699 T. R. GRUBBS dba Grubbs Tire & Appliance, Petitioner,v.GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION. No. 71—257. Argued March 23, 1972. Decided April 18, Syllabus Respondent, a New York corporation, brought suit for $66,000 on promissory note against petitioner, citizen of Texas, in Texas state court, and petitioner filed cross-action $25,000 seeking damages slander, conversion, conspiracy restraint trade. A later included the United States, which held judgment as party defendant. The action was removed to Federal District Court trial issues, petition States. Court, without objection, considered all issues awarded $20,000 respondent. Appeals, sua sponte, that lacked jurisdiction ordered case returned court. Held: Where after removal is tried merits objection federal court enters judgment, issue appeal not whether properly removed, but would have had original if been Here there diversity originally. Pp. 702—706. 447 F.2d 286, reversed remanded. Bill J. Cornelius, Jefferson, Tex., petitioner. Hubert D. Johnson, Dallas, Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner recovered money respondent States Eastern Taxes, appealed Appeals Fifth Circuit. That case, with instructions be remanded whence it removed. This granted certiorari, 404 983, 446, 30 366. We concluded that, or did parties at time entered judgment. Under such circumstances validity procedure followed may raised first appeal, we accordingly reverse Appeals. 2 In September 1964 General Electric Credit Corp. (GECC) commenced lawsuit by filing sought recovery upon claimed previously executed GECC principal sum some $66,000. Two years later, an amended answer 'cross-action,' from Co. (GE) reason alleged trade.1 GE appeared petitioner's it, likewise answer. 3 following year, second cross-actions, one added basis asserted naming fact latter outstanding several his other creditors, prayed determine priorities among liens. Responding gathering momentum this long-dormant lawsuit, then 'for determination claims therein, provided Title 28, Section(s) 1444, 1441(c) 1446.' 4 All treated effect placing before only claim adjudication lien priorities, also respondent's based restrain trade tortious interference business relations. 5 At no respondent, motion remand otherwise, object Court's taking entire 'action.' answered its own 'cross-action' GE, asserting two maliciously interfered contractual relationship between result wrong. 6 ultimately jury. promissory-note claim, favor interference, thereon, dismissed further found unable priority liens various parties. Judgment amount $20,000, providing remaining take nothing their actions. 7 questioned After calling supplemental briefs issue, decided conceivable purportedly accordance 28 U.S.C. § 1444. held, however, 'interpleader' spurious joining defendant under 2410. Therefore, view provisions authorizing 2410, were available Government. Concluding, thus, authorized statute, action, should originated. 8 Longstanding decisions make clear, where subsequent proceedings district Baggs v. Martin, 179 206, 21 109, 45 L.Ed. 155 (1900), receiver appointed sued him. Following merits, reversal ground removable Since earlier him, he could when come action. 9 Mackay Uinta Development Co., 229 173, 33 638, 57 1138 (1913), dealt Wyoming citizens different Plaintiff's less than jurisdictional amount, defendant's counterclaim exceeded amount. either party, merits. When losing upset him because failure comply statutes, rejected saying: 10 '(R)egardless manner how attendance secured, presented Circuit controversy non-resident more $2,000, exclusive interest costs. As subject-matter realigned making plaintiff Company defendant, proper. But any irregularity docketing order pleadings waivable, neither nor method getting operated deprive power cause.' Id., 176—177, S.Ct., 639. 11 Applying doctrine us, concede are purposes jurisdiction. concession supported excerpts discovery record. Respondent pleading initiating Grubbs; There thus 1332 12 American Fire Casualty Finn, 341 6, 71 534, 95 702 (1951), rule enunciated supra, application same State both sides litigation. joined insurance carriers local agent recover fire loss. Finn dispute 'separate independent cause action' 1441(c), therefore unauthorized statute. complete obtain even date since jurisdiction, removable. 13 were, course, Indeed, might said abound additional virtually relief petitioner.2 14 While, free establish rules practice her courts she chooses, statutes intended uniform nationwide application. 'Hence Act Congress must construed setting up criteria, irrespective law, determining what instances suits courts.' Shamrock Oil Sheets, 313 100, 104, 61 868, 870, 85 1214 (1941). lays down However many parties, cross-claims, indeed lawsuits permit 'case' 'action,' requirement applied context two-sided lawsuit. conclude exist stated satisfied here render plaintiff-counter-defendant, defendant-counterclaimant, counter-defendant. It serve purpose require sustain prevailing litigation go show unrelated permitted 15 Finding necessary exist, consideration 16 Reversed. follows. franchised dealer financing customers who purchased products. Petitioner's terms 'Rule 22 Rules Civil Procedure.' However, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 22, interpleader frame cross-claim co-party already plaintiff. If states seek bring joinder 20. Rule nexus case. noted above,

Category: 8