Chicago, R.I. & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart
227 U.S. 184 (1913)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago, R.I. & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U.S. 184 (1913)

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Schwyhart

No. 132

Argued January 21, 22, 1913

Decided February 3, 1913

227 U.S. 184

Syllabus

Whether there was a joint liability of defendants sued jointly for negligence is a matter of state law, and this Court will not go behind the decision of the highest court of the state to which the question can go. Southern Railway Co. v. Miller,217 U. S. 209.

Page 227 U. S. 185

The motive of the plaintiff in joining defendants, taken by itself, does not affect the right to remove. If there is a joint liability, he has a right to enforce it, whatever his reason may be. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Willard,220 U. S. 413.

The fact that the resident defendant joined in a suit with a rich nonresident corporation is poor does not affect the case if the cause of action against them actually be joint.

Whether or not a cause of action was stated against the resident defendant is a question of state law, and where the verdict went against that defendant and was affirmed by the highest court of the state to which it could go, this Court takes the fact as established.

The fact that the declaration was amended after the petition to remove had been denied held immaterial where, as in this case, it merely made the original cause of action more precise.

On the question of removal, this Court need not consider more than whether there was a real intention to get a joint judgment, and whether the record showed colorable ground for it when the removal was denied.

145 Mo.App. 332 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the right of separate removal by a nonresident railway company sued jointly with a resident defendant by an employee for damages for negligence, are stated in the opinion.

Page 227 U. S. 192

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.