FEDERAL PROCEDURE-REMOVAL JURISDICTION-JURISDICTIONAL ESTOPPEL

Respondent sued petitioner, a Florida corporation, the Indiana Lumbermen\u27s Mutual Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation, and Joe Reiss, a citizen of Texas, in a Texas state court. The complaint asked for relief in the alternative for a fire loss suffered by respondent On the joint petition of the two corporate defendants, the case was removed to the federal court under section 1441(c) of the United States Judicial Code. Respondent unsuccessfully moved to remand the case, and, after trial of the case to a jury, a judgment in favor of the respondent was awarded against the petitioner alone. Petitioner\u27s motion to vacate judgment was denied, and this action was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. On writ of certiorari, held, reversed. The majority of the Court concluded that there was no right under the code to remove the case because of the absence of separate and independent claims or causes of action, and this being a jurisdictional requirement, the petitioner was not estopped to allege this jurisdictional defect. The dissenting Justices argued that any error in removal which might have occurred was merely an irregularity and petitioner should be estopped from making any protest as to jurisdiction. American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534 (1951)