Bryant v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 01 January 1886 |
| Citation | 27 F. 881 |
| Parties | BRYANT and others v. THOMPSON and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
J. C Power and H. Scott Howell & Son, for plaintiffs.
S. L Glasgow, for defendants.
This cause is here by transfer from the district court of Iowa for the county of Des Moines. Before its removal a receiver was appointed by the state court to take possession of the property in controversy, and to collect the rents and profits of the same. The defendant, prior to his application to have the cause transferred, moved before the state court for an order to discharge the receiver, and restore the possession of the property to him as the rightful owner. The grounds of this motion, among others, were that the appointment of receiver had been made improvidently, and without due notice to the defendant. The district judge seems to have considered this motion upon the defendant's answer, and such evidence as is applicable to such a proceeding, and, after hearing the arguments of counsel, he denied the motion, and entered an order overruling the same. The defendant now renews in this court his motion to remove and discharge the receiver. He offers no evidence to support his motion in addition to that upon which the state district judge refused to grant his application.
It is argued by counsel that this court does not sit as an appellate tribunal in cases transferred from the state court but takes them, and proceeds with them to a final determination, just as they come from the state court; and therefore it is insisted that it is not competent here to review or reverse any proceeding that may have been had in the state court before the removal of the cause into this court. I am aware that this language is to be found in the decisions of some federal courts, but, without proper qualification, it is misleading. It is true that in removal cases the United States circuit court does not sit as a court of errors, and that as such it cannot review and reverse the interlocutory orders and decisions of the state courts. But it is nevertheless competent for the circuit court to set aside or modify any interlocutory orders or decisions made in the state court before removal, when it satisfactorily appears that such orders are erroneous. The circuit court after the removal certainly has the same power over the decisions made in the state court that it has over its own past ruling and orders in the cases commenced originally before it. If a case transferred had remained in the state court, it would have been entirely competent for that tribunal to have changed modified, or set aside its own orders, when satisfied that they were erroneous. Thus, if the state court had granted a temporary injunction, it would have been competent for the same court, upon a proper showing, to set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buxton v. Pennsylvania Lumber Co.
...federal court over orders, judgments, and other proceedings had in the state court prior to removal is fully recognized. In Bryant v. Thompson (C.C.) 27 F. 881, 882, it said that the Circuit Court has the same power over orders and rulings in the state court--the same jurisdiction to modify......
-
Igloo Products Corp. v. Mounties, Inc.
...S.Ct. at 2186. At all times, The Mounties has had dealings with Igloo in Texas. 3 This principle was clearly stated in Bryant v. Thompson, 27 F. 881, 882 (C.C.Iowa 1886). "Now when a cause is removed from the state court to the United States circuit courts, it stands in the latter just as i......
-
McDonnell v. Wasenmiller
...Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 8) 133 F. 267; Guernsey v. Cross (C. C.) 153 F. 827; Denison v. Shawmut Min. Co. (C. C.) 124 F. 860; Bryant v. Thompson (C. C. Iowa) 27 F. 881; Davis v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. (C. C. Kan.) 25 F. 786; Bragdon v. Perkins-Campbell Co. (C. C.) 82 F. 338; Harrington v. Denny (D......
-
Dicks-David Co. v. Edward Maurer Co.
...Remington v. Central Pacific R. Co., 198 U.S. 95, 99, 25 Sup.Ct. 577, 49 L.Ed. 959; Perry v. Sharpe (C.C.) 8 Fed. 15, 24; Bryant v. Thompson (C.C.) 27 F. 881; Flint Coffin (C.C.A. 4), 176 F. 872, 100 C.C.A. 342 (certiorari denied 219 U.S. 589, 31 Sup.Ct. 472, 55 L.Ed. 348); Mannington v. Ho......