The opinion of the court was delivered by: GRIM
Soon after passage of the condemnation ordinance, the property owner, following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71A, 28 U.S.C. and Pennsylvania procedure,
petitioned this federal court in Civil Action No. 25670 for the appointment of three viewers to determine the amount of the damages, basing jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship. The City moved to dismiss. This court denied the City's motion to dismiss and at the same time appointed viewers as requested in the petition.
Following the denial of its motion to dismiss in No. 25670, the City filed in the state court a petition for the appointment of viewers to determine the amount of the damages, in much the same way as the property owner had done here in No. 25670. In response to the City's petition the state court appointed as viewers the same individuals whom this court has appointed in No. 25670. The viewers are ready to perform their duties, but they are, understandably, uncertain as to whether to act under the appointment by this court or by the state court.
The proceeding brought by the City in the state court, which is the instant case, was removed to this court by the property owner. The matter now before this court is the City's motion to remand.
The record owner of the land is Irving Fox, trustee for certain minors. He acquired title by deed dated September 22, 1958.
As was decided in the opinion on the City's motion to dismiss in No. 25670, Fox was properly appointed and is properly acting as trustee.
In the instant case the City joined as parties in addition to Fox, both the predecessor trustees and the trust beneficiaries. All except Fox are citizens of Pennsylvania. The City contends that because these Pennsylvania citizens are parties, the diversity of citizenship requisite for removal does not exist.
It is clear that the trustee, Irving Fox, as legal owner of the land, had the right without joining the beneficiaries to bring an action to recover the compensation to which the trust estate was entitled for the taking of the land.
'If a right other than for tort or in contract arises against a third person from the holding of title to the trust property, it is enforceable by the trustee. Thus, if property held in trust is taken by eminent domain, the trustee can maintain an action to recover compensation.' Restatement, Trusts, 2d, Sec. 280, comment f.
Consequently, the predecessor trustees and the trust beneficiaries were not necessary parties to this proceeding.
Diversity jurisdiction cannot be defeated by joining unnecessary parties. In Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co., 1924, 264 U.S. 182, 189, 44 S. Ct. 266, 267, 68 L. Ed. 628, the Supreme Court said:
In Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 1925, 267 U.S. 542, 543, 45 S. Ct. 385, 386, 69 L. Ed. 782, the Supreme Court said:
'When a defendant seeks to remove a suit from a State Court to the District Court, of course he is entitled to contend that a party joined by the plaintiff is not a necessary party and therefore does not make the removal impossible by defeating the jurisdiction.'
The former trustees and the beneficiaries having not been necessary parties, the case can be removed to this court even ...