Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
PUTNAM & Another v. INGRAHAM
114 U.S. 57
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1885-03-23
- Topic
- general
*59 Mi?.. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts as above recited, he continued: We are unable to distinguish this case materially from that of The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Ide, just decided. The suit is brought against all the defendants jointly to recover upon what are alleged to be their joint promises and undertakings.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PUTNAM & Another v. INGRAHAM. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 26 opinions
Headnotes
- Civil Procedure — Removal A suit brought against multiple defendants jointly to recover on alleged joint promises and undertakings remains a single, indivisible controversy for purposes of removal even where a state's practice permits judgment for or against one or more of several defendants and allows the court to determine the ultimate rights of the parties among themselves; such a practice does not make a joint contract several or divide a joint suit into separate parts.
- Civil Procedure — Removal A separate controversy is not introduced into a case by separate defenses directed to the same cause of action; where nonresident defendants file a separate answer denying liability and asserting that any liability on part of the account is not joint with a codefendant, that defense does not create a removable separate controversy in a suit on joint causes of action.
- Civil Procedure — Removal The fact that one codefendant has not answered and is in default is unimportant to the removability of a joint suit; the default places the parties in no different position with reference to removal than they would occupy had that codefendant answered and set up an entirely different defense, and the plaintiff, if he sustains his allegations at trial, will be entitled to a joint judgment against all defendants.
- Civil Procedure — Removal Where petitioning defendants seek no affirmative relief either against the plaintiff or against their codefendant, no question arises under a state practice rule allowing the court to determine the ultimate rights of the parties on each side as between themselves, and the only controversy remains the plaintiff's right to recover against the defendants.
delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts as above recited, he continued:
We are unable to distinguish this case materially from that of The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Ide, just decided. The suit is brought against all the defendants jointly to recover upon what are alleged to be their joint promises and undertakings. The defendants-, who are not citizens of Connecticut-, have filed a separate answer in which they deny ■their liability altogether, and claim besides that, if liable at all on part of the account sued for, it is not jointly with the defendant Morgan. This is their separate defence to the joint suit which Ingraham has elected to bring against them and Morgan upon what he claims to be the .joint contracts of all the defendants.
In Connecticut, as in. New York, “judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of several defendants,” and in addition to this the court may, in Connecticut, “ determine the ultimate fights of, the parties on each side as between themselves and grant to the defendant any affirmative relief he may be entitled tó.” But this, as we have said in the case just decided, does not make a joint contract several, nor divide.a joint suit into separate parts. The suit is still one and indivisible for the purposes of removal.
The fact that Morgan has not answered but is - in default is unimportant. The suit is still on joint causes of action, and the plaintiff, if he sustains the allegations of his complaint at the trial, will be entitled to a joint judgment against all the defendants. The default places the parties in no different position with reference to a removal than they would occupy if Morgan bad answered and set up an entirely different defence from that of the other defendants. A separate controversy is not introduced into the case by separate defences to the same cause of action.
As the petitioning defendants have asked no affirmative relief either against the plaintiff or their co-defendant, no question can arise under the rule of practice in Connecticut which allows the court to determine the ultimate rights of the parties on each *60 side as between themselves. In the present case the only controversy is as to the right of the plaintiff to recover against the defendants.
The order to remand is
Affirmed.