If the suit be one of which the circuit court can rightfully
take jurisdiction, the state court loses jurisdiction on the filing
of the petition and bond, and subsequent proceedings in that court
are void; but if, on the face of the record, including the petition
for removal, it does not appear that the suit is removable, the
state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may
proceed as if no application for removal had been made.
Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U.
S. 239.
Although the petition may allege that plaintiff sustained
damages in excess of two thousand dollars, if the prayer for
recovery is for less than that sum, the jurisdictional amount is
not involved, and the filing of a petition and bond does not effect
a removal of the case.
Although the federal court may have made orders continuing a
case in which a petition and bond had been filed, and even
dismissed it for want of prosecution, if the question of its
authority had never been presented to or decided by it, the state
court is not bound to respect such orders as conclusive of the
question of jurisdiction, and so
held in a case which, on
the face of the record, was not removable, as the amount claimed
was less than $2,000, although the damages were stated in the
petition as having exceeded that sum.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.
v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207,
distinguished.
157 Ia. 493 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the state and
federal courts and the effect of an attempted removal
Page 236 U. S. 306
of the case to the federal court where the amount in controversy
was less than $2,000, are stated in the opinion.
Page 236 U. S. 308
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant in error, as administrator of Martin W. Lockhart,
deceased, brought an action on September 22, 1905, in the District
Court of Iowa in and for the County of Mahaska to recover damages
for the alleged wrongful killing of his intestate. In the petition
it was alleged that the estate had been damaged in the sum of
$10,000, but judgment was asked only for the sum of $1,990. On
September 30, 1905, the railway company filed its answer, and on
October 2, 1905, within the time required by law, filed a petition
for removal of the cause to the United States Circuit Court in and
for the Southern District of Iowa, on the ground of diversity of
citizenship, alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded, with
interest and costs, the sum of $2,000. The petition was accompanied
by a bond.
The district court of Mahaska County did not enter any order
directing the removal of the case, but, on the March 29, 1906,
there was filed in the office of the Clerk of the United States
Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa a transcript of the
proceedings in the case. After the filing of the transcript in the
federal court, the case was continued from term to term until, on
the December 5, 1908, an order to notice said case for trial at the
next term or show cause why it should not be dismissed was entered,
and the clerk was directed to mail and serve a copy of said order
on the parties. On May 11, 1909, the circuit court of the United
States entered an order dismissing the cause
Page 236 U. S. 309
for want of prosecution at the plaintiff's costs, and the
defendant was given judgment for its costs.
Afterwards, on the September 19, 1910, the plaintiff filed in
the office of the District Court of Mahaska County an amended and
substituted petition. On the October 6, 1910, the district court
entered an order denying the application of the defendant for a
removal of the cause to the United States court on the ground that
the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, was
less than $2,000. The application for removal was the one filed on
October 2, 1905. On February 28, 1911, the railway company filed a
motion to dismiss the case and to strike from the files all
pleadings filed subsequent to the 1st of September, 1905, on the
ground that the case had been removed to the United States circuit
court. Attached to the motion was a certified copy of the record in
the United States court. This motion was denied, and afterwards the
case went to trial in the state court, and upon verdict of the jury
a judgment was rendered against the railway company. The case was
taken to the Supreme Court of Iowa, and that court affirmed the
judgment of the lower court. 157 Ia. 493. The case was brought
here, and the federal question presented is whether the state court
had lost its jurisdiction by the attempted removal to the United
States circuit court.
It was, of course, essential to the removal of the case that the
amount in controversy should have been sufficient to give the
federal court jurisdiction -- that is to say, $2,000, exclusive of
interest and costs. The state court had authority to determine the
effect of the prayer to the petition, and it decided that, under
the petition, no more than the amount prayed for could be recovered
in the action, notwithstanding the statement that the estate had
suffered damage in the sum $10,000. It is contended that,
nevertheless, the proceedings in this case show that the case was
removed to the United States circuit court, and, inasmuch
Page 236 U. S. 310
as the state court lost jurisdiction, its subsequent proceedings
are null and void.
In
Traction Company v. Mining Company, 196 U.
S. 239, this Court said, citing many previous cases,
that certain principles relating to the removal of causes had been
settled by the former adjudications of the Court. One is that, if
the suit be one in which the circuit court could rightfully take
jurisdiction, then, upon the filing of the petition for removal in
due time, with sufficient bond, the case is in law removed, and the
state court loses jurisdiction to proceed further, and all
subsequent proceedings therein are void. Furthermore, that if, upon
the face of the record, including the petition for removal, the
suit does not appear to be removable, then the state court is not
bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no
application for removal had been made.
See also the
previous cases in this Court cited in the
Traction Company
case at
196 U. S. 244
and 245.
Applying these principles, it is apparent that the case now
under consideration was not, upon the face of the record, a
removable one. The prayer for recovery was for $1,990, and
consequently the amount required to give jurisdiction to the
federal court was not involved. The filing of the petition and bond
did not therefore effect a removal of the case.
But it is contended that this case is governed by
Chesapeake
& Ohio Ry. v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207,
because the United States court had determined, as it had authority
to, that the case was a removable one, and that, so long as that
judgment stood, the state court had lost its jurisdiction, and had
no power to proceed further in the case. In the
McCabe
case, where the state court refused to order the removal of the
case upon a transcript being filed, the federal court held that it
had jurisdiction in the case, and proceeded to render a judgment
therein, and when this adjudication was brought to the attention of
the state
Page 236 U. S. 311
court, it refused to give it force, and proceeded to adjudge the
case upon its own view of jurisdiction. This Court held that the
state court was bound to give weight to the judgment of the federal
court deciding that it had jurisdiction, and that the judgment,
until reversed, was conclusive upon the state court as to the
jurisdiction of the federal court.
But no such case is presented here. The federal court, it is
true, more than once made an order continuing the case, and finally
dismissed it for want of prosecution. The question of its authority
to take jurisdiction was never presented or decided in the federal
court, and there is nothing in the orders made conclusive of that
question in such sense that the state court was bound to respect
it.
As the record, upon its face, made no case for removal, the
state court was right in retaining its jurisdiction and proceeding
to determine and adjudge the case. The judgment is
Affirmed.