Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Kavourgias v. Nicholaou Co.
148 F.2d 96
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1945-03-12
- Topic
- bankruptcy
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge. This was a suit by appellant, Ioannis Kavourgias, a citizen and subject of the Kingdom of . Greece, against appellee, Nicholaou Company, Limited, a Greek corporation, for damages in the sum of $10,-000. The suit was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco, but, on petition of appellee, was removed from that court to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. There appellee moved for and obtained a so-called order of court declining jurisdiction.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Kavourgias v. Nicholaou Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 13 opinions
KAVOURGIAS v. NICHOLAOU CO.,148 F.2d 96(9th Cir. 1945)
KAVOURGIAS v. NICHOLAOU CO., Limited.
No. 10801.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 12, 1945.
Action by Ioannis Kavourgias against Nicholaou Company, Limited. The action was brought in the superior court of the state of California and, on defendant's petition, was removed to the federal District Court. From an order declining jurisdiction, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Lillick, Geary, Olson Charles, Allan E. Charles and Harold S. Dobbs, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
The question is whether the suit was removable. Though not raised by the parties, the question is here and must be decided.1
Section 28 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 71, provides for removal of any "suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, * * * of which the district courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction."
By § 24(1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1), the district courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction of "all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, * * * where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000, and (a) arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or (b) is between citizens of different States, or citizens of the District of Columbia, the Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory, or (c) is between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects."Page 97
This was a suit of a civil nature, at common law, and the matter in controversy exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000, but it did not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States or any treaty, nor was it between citizens of different States, or citizens of the District of Columbia, Hawaii or Alaska and any State or Territory, nor was it between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects. It was between aliens.
Being a suit between aliens, wherein no Federal question was raised, this was not a suit of which the district courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction,2and hence was not removable.3
Order reversed and case remanded to the District Court, with directions to remand it to the Superior Court.
- Chicago, Burlington Quincy R. Co. v. Willard,220 U.S. 413, 31 S.Ct. 460, 55 L.Ed. 521; Cheyne v. Atchison, T. S.F.R. Co., 9 Cir.,125 F.2d 49. ↩
- Cunard S.S. Co. v. Smith, 2 Cir., 255 F. 846, 848; Doidge v. Cunard S.S. Co., 1 Cir.,19 F.2d 500, 502; Ex parte Edelstein, 2 Cir.,30 F.2d 636, 638. See, also, Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12, 1 L.Ed. 720; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch 46, 2 L.Ed. 545; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303, 3 L.Ed. 108; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136, 7 L.Ed. 374. ↩
- Judicial Code, § 28, 28 U.S.C.A. § 71. ↩