192 P.a<ENIX INS. CO.
nDBRAL .·BE!'ORTBB.
v.
LIVERPOOr.
& GREAT WESTERN (Limited.)l June 30,1883.)
STEA.M CO.
(Circuit (foun, E. D. N61JJ York.
The decree of the district court in the same case {12 FED. REP. 77) affirmed.
AGREEMENT-REoOVERY BAOK OF FREIGHT MONEY.
In Admiralty. Beebe, Wilcox rl Hobbs, for libelant and appellant. Butler, Stillman rl Hubbard, for respondent and appellee. BLATOHFORD, Justice. The conclusion of the district court, and the reasohs stated therefor, are entirely satisfactory to me. A decree must be entered dismissing the libel, with costs to the respondent, in thtl district court, taxed at $68.84, and in this court to be taxed.
See the opinion of the district court in the same case, (reported as Hehrbacl, v. Liwrpool & Great Western Steam Co.,) 12 FED. RE:P.77.
BUJllL v.
PIDGEON
and Scow No. 1.1 July 18, 1883.)
(Oircuit llourt, E. D. N61JJ York.
CoMMON CARRIER-PERIL OB' THE SEAS-DAMAGE BY SWELL Oll' PASSING BOATSNEGLIGENOE. The decree of the district court in the same case (fi FED. REp. 634) affirmed.
In Admiralty.
BLATCHFORD, Justice. The deposition of James Murphy in this court was regularly taken. I concur in the conclusions arrived at by the district court. Those conclusions are not varied by the new evidence on appeal. The libel is dismissed, with costs to the respondent and claimant in the district court, taxed at $105, and in this court to be taxed.
Sidney Chubb, for libelant and appellant. Beebe, Wilcox rl Hobbs, for claimant and appellee.
See the opinion of the district court In the same case, (reported under the name of Bell v. Pidgeon,) 5 FED. REF. 684. lReported b, R. D."
W,ll,.
Benedict, otthe New York bar.
LEVI
v. v.
LACLEDB llANL
198
LEVY
LACLEDE BANK. t
«(}ircuit Court, E. D. Mi880wri. 1. 2. PRACTlcE-JURI8DICTION-REMOVAL.
September 20, 1883.)
A party who is not entitled to bring his suit in this court originally, cannot bring it here by removal from a state court. ·
Where it is doubtful whether this court or a state court jurisdiction over a case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the state court. 3. SAME-REMOVAL ACT OF 1875 CONSTRUED - A CHEOK NOT A "BILL OF ExA check is not a bill of exchange, within the meaning of the first section of the removal act of 1875, and a suit brought upon a check by an indorsee agalllst the maker cannot be removed from a state court to a circuit court of the United States, where the maker and payee are citizens of the same state. 4. SAME-PLEADING. OHANGE."
SAME.
Where the maker and payee are citizens of difierent states, a failure to allege that fact is fatal.
Motion to Remand. Garland Pollard, for plaintiff·. McKeeghan rJ; Jones and Dyer, Lee « Ellis, for defendant. McCRARY, J., (orally.) This case is before the court upon a motion to remand. The suit was brought in the state court upon an ordinary bank check, dated St. Louis, February 2, 1883, payable to L. J. Sharpe or order, which check was signed to the order of Robert and George E. Day, and by them indorsed to the present plaintiff. Thepet.ition for the removal of the cause states that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Illinois, and the defendant a corporation of the state of Missouri, with the other allegations as to the amount in controversy, which are required by the removal act; but there is no allegation in the petition for removal as to the citizenship of the payee of this paper, under whom the plaintiff holds. The provisions of the removal act upon this subject are found in the first and second sections of the act of 1875. The provisions regarding removal are found in the second section; those regarding jurisdiction, in the first. The first section, among other things, in determining the jurisdiction . of the court as to appeals, provides: "Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the law-merchant, and bills of exchange." The second section, providing for the removal of causes, declares in general terms that there shall be a right of removal in any case in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, JReported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.
v.18,no.4-13