Overview
Case summary
This case involves a motion by defendant Southern Railroad Company to remove two lawsuits from state court in Durham County, North Carolina, to federal circuit court under the Act of March 3, 1887, based on alleged local prejudice. The railroad submitted affidavits showing a history of bitter litigation between its predecessor (Richmond & Danville Railroad) and the city of Durham, including near-riot conditions and arrests. Multiple disinterested witnesses testified that the railroad could not obtain justice in Durham County due to prejudice against corporations. Although some witnesses for the plaintiff testified that no prejudice existed, the court found the positive evidence of prejudice more credible and ordered removal, noting that trial could proceed promptly in adjacent Raleigh.
Abstract
The defendant railroad company moved to remove two lawsuits from state court to federal circuit court, citing local prejudice in the county under the Act of March 3, 1887, supported by affidavits detailing a history of bitter litigation and testimony from disinterested witnesses that justice could not be obtained locally due to anti-corporate bias. Although plaintiff witnesses denied prejudice, the court found the positive evidence more credible. The court ordered removal, noting prompt trial availability in an adjacent jurisdiction.
Opinion of the court
opinionSEYMOUR, District Judge
- Historical litigation created local prejudice against railroad
- Unimpeached witnesses provided credible testimony of prejudice
- Negative testimony from plaintiff's witnesses insufficient
- Removal causes minimal delay or inconvenience
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Defendant is a citizen of another state
- Alleged local prejudice in state court
Procedural posture
- Motion to remove based on local prejudice under Act of March 3, 1887
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
Discretionary review of affidavits and evidence
Court found sufficient evidence of local prejudice based on affidavits showing historical litigation, arrests, and ongoing disputes
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Statutory interpretation
1Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Removal based on local prejudice — abuse of discretion Court reviews affidavits and evidence to determine if local prejudice exists warranting removal
Timeline
Suit between town of Durham and railroad company over Seaboard System's attempt to use Richmond & Danville Railroad roadbed
Historical context for alleged local prejudice
Defendant Southern Railroad Company filed motion to remove case from state to federal court under Act of March 3, 1887
Outcome: Motion granted
Central procedural issue in the case
Court ordered removal of both Herndon cases to federal circuit court
Outcome: Removal granted
Final disposition on removal motion
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
5 facts- Bitterly contested litigation between city of Durham and Richmond & Danville Railroad Company (predecessor to Southern Railroad Company)
- Almost a riot during prior litigation
- Arrests of railroad company servants
- Ongoing litigation between Southern Railroad Company and city of Durham
- Witnesses testified about local prejudice against corporations in Durham
Disputed questions
- Existence and extent of local prejudice against Southern Railroad Company in Durham County
- Whether defendant can obtain justice in Durham County
Procedural history
3 steps- Plaintiff filed suit in state court
- Defendant moved for removal to federal court based on local prejudice
- Court considered affidavits from both parties
Evidence in the record
- Affidavits from Col. Andrews, Mr. O'Brien, J. A. White, N. A. Ramsey, H. N. Snow, J. H. Berry, J. M. King, M. H. Jones, P. C. Sneed testifying to local prejudice
- Affidavits from Fred A. Green, J. F. Maddry, G. A. Barbee, F. D. Markham, D. C. Gunter testifying no prejudice exists
- Affidavits submitted by both parties
- Evidence type: Testimonial evidence about local prejudice · Challenge basis: Conflicting witness testimony · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Court credited unimpeached witnesses showing prejudice over negative testimony · Challenged on appeal: false
Policy considerations
- Ensuring fair trial for out-of-state defendants
- Balancing local attachment against impartial justice
Authorities
Cited authorities (1)
Related cases (1)
Statutes
- Act of March 3, 1887 (federal removal statute)
Standards & doctrines
- Discretionary review of removal motions based on local prejudice
Legal principles applied
- Federal removal statute requires showing of prejudice preventing fair trial
- Court discretion in evaluating affidavits for removal
Notable quotes
“It is evidently not difficult to find honest witnesses in any county to testify that justice can be obtained in such county in any given case. Natural feelings of local attachment would prompt such testimony.”SEYMOUR, District Judge — Discussing why plaintiff's negative testimony about prejudice was less credibleExplains court's reasoning for crediting positive evidence of prejudice