The respondent suffered a loss by fire, and being uncertain as to which party was liable to compensate for this loss, joined the petitioner and two others as defendants in a suit asking for alternative relief. The petitioner and one of the defendants were insurance corporations with residence outside the state, while the third defendant's residence was the same as that of the respondent. The corporate defendants secured removal of the case to the federal court, and on a trial of the issues, a judgment was rendered for the respondent against the petitioner in the amount of the insurance claimed plus interest. A motion by the petitioner to vacate the judgment and remand the case to the state court was denied by the trial judge, and the court of appeals affirmed. On writ of certiorari, held, reversed. The majority held, "that where there is a single wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of transactions, there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under 1441(c)." Three justices dissented on the ground that if any error had been committed as to removal, it was merely an irregularity and the petitioner having had the case removed was estopped to request a remand to the state court American Fire and Casualty Company v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534 (1951).
Paul Harrison S. Ed.,
FEDERAL PROCEDURE-REMOVAL JURISDICTION-MEANING OF "SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT'' AS USED IN THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CODE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol49/iss8/18