Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1900 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRemovalFederal Question JurisdictionSeparable Controversyremovalfederal questionall defendants rulejoint cause of action

Facts

The plaintiff brought an ordinary state-law action for wrongful death against multiple defendants, including the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company and receivers of the Union Pacific Railway Company. The receivers, who had been appointed by a federal circuit court and were citizens of states other than Kansas, sought removal after the Rock Island Company had answered, asserting that the suit as to them arose under the laws of the United States. The Rock Island Company did not join in the removal application. The case presented a joint cause of action against all defendants, and no federal question was presented by the pleadings or litigated at trial.

Issue

When multiple defendants are sued on a joint cause of action, may some defendants remove the case under the first clause of § 2 of the 1887-88 act on the theory that the suit arises under federal law, without the joinder of all defendants? Also, was there a separable controversy that allowed the receivers alone to remove?

Rule

Under § 2 of the 1887-88 removal act, if a suit falls within the first clause (arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States) or the ordinary diversity clause, removal must be sought by all defendants when there is more than one defendant. Only where there is a controversy wholly between citizens of different states that is truly separable and can be fully determined between those parties may one or more defendants remove without all defendants joining.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio state court, Lena Ortiz sues Great Prairie Freight Lines and Caleb Nunn, a receiver appointed by a federal court to operate Midland Transit, alleging that both jointly caused a warehouse worker's death through negligent rail operations in Toledo. Nunn files a notice seeking removal on the ground that, as a federally appointed receiver, the suit against him arises under federal law, but Great Prairie refuses to join.

Is removal proper?

Explanation. The majority treated a joint tort claim against multiple defendants as a single controversy. Even assuming the receiver could characterize the suit against him as arising under federal law, removal under the first clause requires all defendants to unite when there is more than one defendant, unless there is a true separable controversy. A receiver's federal appointment alone does not let him remove a joint action by himself. (Derived from Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin (1900).)