by John Marshall Harlan

Name: Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court
Author: by John Marshall Harlan

Summary

“Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by by John Marshall Harlan. It explores elements such as controversy, defendants and removal.

Quotes from Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court (by John Marshall Harlan)

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ It was often convenient to embrace in one suit all the controversies which were so far connected by their circumstances as to make all who sue, or are sued, proper, though not indispensable parties. Rather than split up such a suit between courts of different jurisdictions, Congress determined that the removal of the separable controversy to which the judicial power of the United States was, by the Constitution, expressly extended, should operate to transfer the whole suit to the Federal court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ We any remark that with the policy of the act of 1875 we have nothing to do. Our duty is to give effect to the will of the law-making power when expressed within the limits of the Constitution.
We are of opinion that the intention of Congress, by the clause under consideration, was not only to preserve some of the substantial features or principles of the act of 1866, but to make radical changes in the law regulating the removal of causes from State courts. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ It may be suggested that if the complaint has united causes of action, which, under the settled rules of pleading, need not, or should not, have been united in one suit, the removal ought not to carry into the Federal court any controversy except that which is wholly between citizens of different States, leaving for the determination of the State court the controversy between the plaintiffs and the land company. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ Does the fact that the land company, one of the defendants, is a corporation of Minnesota, of which State one of the plaintiffs is a citizen, prevent a removal of the suit to the Circuit Court of the United States? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ No objection taken it is deemed to be waived;' in the court below to the complaint upon the ground of multifariousness or misjoinder, and the plaintiffs should not be heard to make it for the purpose, or with the effect, of defeating the right of removal. They are not in any position to say that that right does not exist, because they have made defendants those who were not proper parties to the entire relief asked. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ This provision is explicit, and leaves no room to doubt what Congress intended to accomplish. It proceeds, plainly, upon the ground, among others, that a suit may, under correct pleading, embrace several controversies, one of which may be between the plaintiff and that defendant who is a citizen of a State other than that in which the suit is brought; that to the final determination of such separate controversy the other defendants may not be indispensable parties ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ There is a controversy between the plaintiffs in the suit. There is a controversy Company, to the full determination of which the other defendants are not, in any legal sense, indispensable parties, although, as stockholders in the company, they may have an interest in its ultimate disposition. Against the latter, as a corporation, a decree is asked requiring it to convey to the plaintiffs the undivided two-ninths of one thirty-seventh of certain lands, and to account for the proceeds of the lands by it sold subsequently to the conveyance from the railroad company. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ It was not discussed here, and we are not disposed to conclude its determination by the court of original jurisdiction, when it is therein presented in proper form. A defendant may be a proper, but not an indispensable, party to the relief asked. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court

“ Relf and Chew, 2 How. 619, 642, that it is impracticable to lay down any rule, as to what constitutes multifariousness as an abstract proposition; that each case must depend upon its own circumstances ”

by John Marshall Harlan

Summary

Quotes from Barney v. Latham — Opinion of the Court (by John Marshall Harlan)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature