Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Company

by Melvin Fuller

United States Supreme Court

179 U.S. 335

Gableman  v.  Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Company

 Argued: November 16, 1900. --- Decided: December 10, 1900

The certificate in this case was as follows:

'This action was brought originally in the superior court for Vanderburg county, in the state of Indiana, on the 28th of August, 1897, by the plaintiff in error, a citizen of Indiana, against the defendants in error, to recover damages for personal injuries said to have been sustained by the plaintiff in error, in March, 1897, through the negligence of the defendants in error in the operation of a railway train, and the failure to properly operate the gates at a railway crossing. The defendant railway company is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Indiana, and the defendant, George Colvin, is a citizen of Indiana. The defendant, Edward O. Hopkins, was, at the time the injuries were received and the suit was commenced, receiver of the defendant railway company, by appointment of the United States circuit court for the southern district of Illinois, and was, at the time of the injuries, in the sole control and management of the railway company, having an office in Vanderburg county, in the state of Indiana, the defendant Colvin being in his employment as a locomotive engineer, and as his servant operating the engine at the time of the injury. The record does not show that the duties of the defendant, Colvin, extended to the operation or maintenance of the gates at the railway crossing. The record does not disclose the place of residence, or the citizenship of Hopkins, as an individual.

'In due time after the commencement of the suit the defendant, Edward O. Hopkins, receiver, on his sole petition, removed the cause into the circuit court for the district of Indiana, upon the ground that it was a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. A motion to remand was entered by the plaintiff in error, and overruled by the circuit court for the district of Indiana; and, at the trial subsequently, a verdict was, by direction of the court, returned for the defendants in error.

'The questions of law upon which this court desires the advice and instruction of the Supreme Court are: '(1.) Did the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana have, upon these facts, jurisdiction to try the cause?

'(2.) Was the cause one properly removable into the circuit court of the United States?'

[Mr. W. A. Cullop for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Walter S. Horton for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes