Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF TAFT v. SOUTHERN MORTGAGE CO. et al., 1930 — 39 F.2d 246 · caselaw · US
General
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF TAFT v. SOUTHERN MORTGAGE CO. et al.
39 F.2d 246·United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF TAFT v. SOUTHERN MORTGAGE CO. et al.
No. 42.
District Court, S. D. Texas, at Corpus Christi.
Feb. 17, 1930.
Boone & Savage, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for plaintiff.
John C. North, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendants.
[MAJORITY — HUTCHESON, District Judge.]
HUTCHESON, District Judge.
The plaintiff moves to remand on the ground that the action is one and indivisible to remove cloud upon and' quiet title to its property, and to determine the validity and position of conflicting lien claimants, and that, though the answers do present separate defenses, there is within the meaning of the law no separable controversy here.
It seems to me that plaintiff is correct. Certainly the philosophy of the statute (28 USCA § 71) which granted removal in cases of separable controversies does not extend to a ease of this kind. The purpose and.intent of that act was to prevent a nonresident defendant from being deprived of his right to try his cause in the federal court by having a cause of action against him alone, joined in the same suit with a cause or causes of action involving him and others jointly.
Here it is essential to plaintiff’s complete relief that all of the parties be joined in the same suit, and it will not do to answer that plaintiff was not deprived of that right, since a removal now brings into the federal court not only the separable controversy but the whole case, for the question is whether there is in this suit a cause of action which can be completely determined between plaintiff and the removing defendants alone, and to this I think the answer must be in the negative.
Let an order of remand then be entered-