Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Investment Co.
277 U.S. 54 (1928)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Investment Co., 277 U.S. 54 (1928)

Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Investment Company

No. 433

Argued April 13, 1928

Decided May 14, 1928

277 U.S. 54

Syllabus

1. Jurisdiction of the district court on removal should appear affirmatively; it may be questioned at any stage, and its absence cannot be waived, but acquiescence may strengthen inferences from the record of facts necessary to sustain jurisdiction. P. 277 U. S. 59.

2. A controversy between the plaintiff and a citizen of another state, as to the validity of certain warrants and their acquisition by that

Page 277 U. S. 55

defendant as a bona fide purchaser held separable from a controversy between the plaintiff and other defendants as to their liability as guarantors of an agreement to hold the warrants in escrow. P. 277 U. S. 59.

3. Removal to the district court on the ground of separable controversy between citizens of different states removes the whole suit. Jud.Code § 28. P. 277 U. S. 60.

20 F.2d 497 reversed.

Certiorari, 275 U.S. 516, to a judgment of the circuit court of appeals, affirming in part and in part reversing a judgment in a suit brought by the city which was removed to the district court by the above-named respondent upon the ground of diversity of citizenship. The suit concerned certain warrants issued by the city which it sought to have cancelled as invalid. The removing defendant made good its claim as bona fide purchaser, and the judgment in its favor was affirmed. Two other defendants, who were residents of the state and whom the city sought to hold as guarantors of escrow conditions under which the warrants were deposited, were also successful in the district court, but, as to them, the judgment was reversed by the circuit court of appeals, and the cause ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction, that court being of the opinion that their part of the case was not removable.

Page 277 U. S. 56

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw 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.