Court Opinion

ID: 8310265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:47:26.844557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:41.949199
License: Public Domain

Woods, J.
Upon the showing made, it is too clear—as it seems to me—to admit of dispute that Porter was entitled to be made a party defendant; and, having been wrongfully denied that right, he should, in respect to the question of removal, he deemed to be a party. The case in this respect is very like one decided by Judges Davis and Treat in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Illinois. That decision was not reported officially, but in a note upon pages 42 and 43 of Dillon’s Removal of Causes, is given a statement of it which, as has been shown at this hearing, is authentic and accurate. The present case is stronger than that, because in that the application to become a party was made to the judge in vacation, while in this it was made to the court in Open session, and to the judge of the court at the. county seat during the term alloted by law and before the court had been adjourned. There is certainly no good reason apparent in the record why the presiding judge should not have permitted the papers to be filed. If a judge be interested in a cause pending in his own court, he must make the formal entries or orders necessary to put the case in a way to be determined; and a refusal to do so, under ordinary circumstances, is equivalent to an active interference to the injury of the adverse party. The essential wrong in this ease, however, was the refusal of the regular judge to go upon the bench and give a hearing upon the proposed motions. The court in contemplation of law was open, or at least capable of being opened. The judge presiding had not adjourned it; the clerk and sheriff, so far as appears, had not attempted to adjourn it. The judge having been present on that day, they had no power under the statute to declare an adjournment. Rev. St. 1881, §§ 1381, 1382.
. The entry made by the clerk upon the probate order-book, it seems to me, is not material to be considered; and even if a formal adjournment had been declared, entered of record, and signed by the regular •judge, it could not well be held, I think, that the order might not have been disregarded or vacated, and other business done in the court upon the same or even upon a succeeding day, if within the lawful term of the court. Mere inconvenience would seem to forbid a different rule, and there is apparently no insuperable, or even strong, *359reason against this view. The question, however, does not now arise. In this case the power to hear clearly remained; its exercise,was seasonably and properly invoked; and under tlio decision referred to, the authority of which is not now and here, at least, to bo disputed, it must be hold that Porter acquired such standing in court, or in the case at least, as to enable him to claim a removal. It may he that if the motion to be made party had been heard and overruled, the remedy might and ought to have been sought in an appeal to the supreme court of the state, and tlienee, if necessary, to the federal supreme court, though it is not clear how a case could be so presented, on appeal from the overruling of a motion to become a party, as to present also the question of right of removal. Upon this record, however, the court is not required to review any decision or ruling of the state court upon a matter brought within its jurisdiction, but only to give effect to its refusal,-without apparent excuse, to receive and pass upon tlxe motion when rightfully presented.
The other objections made to the removal'are all, as I think, untenable. They turn upon the relation to tlxe case of New, the trustee. He is not in fact a party. He refused to become a party of his own motion. By reason of this, Porter became entitled to bo made a party in his own right. Tie could not bring New into the case with liim,—that is not the office of a cross-hill,—and if upon consideration tlxe court should order New to be made a party, his relation to the case would, as it seems to me, be so entirely nominal as not to affect tlxe jurisdiction. The case of Thayer v. Life Ass’n, 112 U. S. 717, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 355, is cited in support of the opposite view; but in that case the trustee was proceeding to sell the trust property, and the action being to restrain him from making the sale, he was of course hold to be an indispensable party. If Now were brought into the case, it is to bo presumed that he would persist in his refusal to act under tlxe trust, and if he did this, it is clear that his relation to the case would be purely nominal and of no significance. If necessary, the court might, and of. course would, appoint another to exorcise the powers conferred by the trust deeds.
It is claimed, however, that the refusal of New to apply to be made a party was for the collusive purpose solely of enabling Porter to come in and remove the cause. Without going into details, it is enough to say that it was in the power and apparent duty of the complainants to have made New a party to the original bill; they chose not to do it; and upon the entire record and proof made, the alleged collusion for the purpose of obtaining, a removal is not manifest. To say the least, the justification for seeking a removal is so manifestly strong that the court is not called upon to make a minute search for grounds upon which to base a refusal of jurisdiction.
That there are controversies in the caso between Porter, as a citizen of one state, and citizens of other states is sufficiently clear. Upon his cross-bill he has a controversy with the defendant railway com*360paiiy, and upon his cross-bill and answer he has separate controversies with that company and the original complainants. Each of these controversies is between, and may be wholly determined between, citizens of different states. Indeed, each claimant in the original bill, —and there are three of them,—and each additional claimant who has or may come in under that bill, has a separate claim which Porter does or may contest; and the controversy so raised is clearly separable, and determinable wholly between him and the particular claimant as if there were no other parties to the record. And one of the claimants in the case is, as I understood it to be stated and conceded upon the argument, a citizen of the state of Michigan; and as against him, even if New were an actual and willing party and ranged upon the same side of the case with Porter, there would be, in this view, a proper controversy upon which the application for removal could stand. This would certainly be so, unless the railway company should be deemed a necessary party to such controversy. This question, however, need not be decided.
It follows that the transcript and other papers offered should be filed, and the cause docketed here as properly removed.
Ordered accordingly.