Chappell Chemical Fertilizer Co v. Sulphur Mines Co of Virginia
| Decision Date | 09 January 1899 |
| Docket Number | No. 99,99 |
| Citation | 19 S.Ct. 268,43 L.Ed. 520,172 U.S. 474 |
| Parties | CHAPPELL CHEMICAL & FERTILIZER CO. v. SULPHUR MINES CO. OF VIRGINIA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Chappell, for plaintiff in error.
James M. Ambler and Randolph Barton, for defendant in error.
This is an action at law brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error and another for causes growing out of the matters sued on in No. 92 (19 Sup. Ct. 268). Here, as in No. 92, there was a series of motions, which we do not think it is necessary to notice.
The case, on the appeal of plaintiff in error, reached and was passed on by the court of appeals of the state, and to its judgment (36 Atl. 712), affirming that of the lower court, this writ of error is directed.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Claims under the constitution of the United States were set up in several of the motions and denied by the court. One claim was that the constitution of Maryland abridged the right of trial by jury in the courts of Baltimore city, without making a similar provision for the counties of the state, and that this denies to litigants of the city the equal protection of the laws.1 This is not tenable. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350.
The other claim was that the state courts lost jurisdiction by reason of the pendency of a petition filed under section 641, Rev. St., to remove the case to the United States circuit court. The petition for removal is not in the record, and we only know that it was filed by reason of the recital in other motions and its notice in the opinion of the court of appeals, and the grounds of it do not appear in any part of the record.
In all other matters the judgment of the court of appeals depends on questions of state practice and state laws.
Judgment affirmed.
1 The constitution of Maryland (article 4, § 39, as amended) confers on the supreme bench of Baltimore city the power to provide, 'by its rules, for requiring causes in any of the courts of Baltimore city to be tried before the court without a jury, unless the litigants or some one of them shall, within such reasonable time or times as may be prescribed, elect to have their causes tried before a jury.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washabaugh v. Washabaugh
...(1914); Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U.S. 589, 597-99, 21 S.Ct. 730, 45 L.Ed. 1015 (1901); Chappell Chemical Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co., 172 U.S. 474, 475, 19 S.Ct. 268, 43 L.Ed. 520 (1899); Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 72, 7 S.Ct. 350, 30 L.Ed. 578 (1887); Accord, e. g., Walber v. Piggi......
-
Davidson v. Miller
...the same may be said of Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 7 S.Ct. 350, 30 L.Ed. 578 (1887) and Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co., 172 U.S. 474, 19 S.Ct. 268, 43 L.Ed. 520 (1899). In Hayes the Supreme Court concluded that the equal protection clause was not violated by a ......
-
Redman v. State
...v. Sulphur Mines Co., 85 Md. 684, 36 A. 712 (identifying it as an unreported case), 85 Md. 684, 36 A. 712 (1897), aff'd, 172 U.S. 474, 19 S.Ct. 268, 43 L.Ed. 520 (1899), and quoted from it that: "The intent and purpose of the constitutional provision for the removal of causes was to avoid a......
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
... ... cite decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In ... one of the decisions of that court ... and not in others. Chappell Chemical & Fertilizer Co. v ... Sulphur Mines ... ...