Crehore v. Ohio Ry Co
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HARLAN |
| Citation | 9 S.Ct. 692,33 L.Ed. 144,131 U.S. 240 |
| Parties | CREHORE v. OHIO & M. RY. CO |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1889 |
Page 241
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for the motion.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 241-242 intentionally omitted]
Page 242
John Mason Brown, contra.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought by the plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff below, in the Louisville (Kentucky) Law and Equity Court, against the Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him, while a passenger upon the road of that company, by reason of the wilful neglect of those by whom it was operated. The company, on the 24th of November, 1884, filed its petition, accompanied by bond in proper form, for the removal of the case, upon the ground of the diverse citizenship of the parties, into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. Thereupon an order was made by the state court that it would proceed no further. The case was docketed and tried in the Circuit Court of the United States, and resulted in a verdict for the defendant, followed by a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's petition. From that judgment the plaintiff prosecuted a writ of error.
At the argument in this court at present term, attention
Page 243
was called to the fact that the record did not sufficiently show the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the action, as well as at the time of the application for removal. Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U.S. 230. Upon this ground an order was entered reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court, and remanding the cause, with directions that it be sent back to the state court. The case is again before us upon a motion in behalf of the railway company, that the judgment of reversal be so framed as to omit therefrom an absolute direction to the Circuit Court to remand the cause to the state court, to the end that the defendant may take steps for the correction and amendment of the petition for removal, and of the record and proceedings in that behalf.
It is conceded that the record does not show affirmatively the citizenship of the parties at the commencement of the action in the state court, and that the judgment, for that reason, must be reversed.
Upon the filing by either party, or by any one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants, 'entitled to remove any suit' mentioned in the first or second sections of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470,) of the petition and bond required by it third section, 'it shall then be the duty of the state court to accept said petition and bond, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
...application for removal is made, "the record, upon its face, shows it to be one that is removable." Crehore v. Ohio & Mississippi R. Co, 131 U. S. 240, 9 S. Ct. 692, 693, 33 L. Ed. 144; Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co, supra; Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513, 7 S. Ct.......
-
McEldowney v. Card, 1,581.
...by the status of the parties at the commencement of the suit. Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556, 563, 7 L.Ed. 518; Crehore v. Railway Co., 131 U.S. 240, 243, 9 Sup.Ct. 692, 33 L.Ed. 144; [193 F. 483] Jackson v. Allen, 132 U.S. 27, 10 Sup.Ct. 9, 33 L.Ed. 249; Anderson v. Watt, supra, 138 U.S. 70......
-
Yarbrough v. Blake, No. 1677.
...is made within the prescribed statutory period for the filing of a petition for removal. Crehore v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Company, 131 U.S. 240, 9 S.Ct. 692, 33 L.Ed. 144; Mattingly v. Northwestern Virginia Railroad Co., 158 U.S. 53, 15 S.Ct. 725, 39 L.Ed. "4 The defendants' motion for......
-
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., Civ. No. 16790.
...the petition for removal, Graves v. Corbin, 1890, 132 U.S. 571, 590-591, 10 S.Ct. 196, 33 L.Ed. 462; Crehore v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 1889, 131 U.S. 240, 244-245, 9 S.Ct. 692, 33 L.Ed. (11) that the scope of the removal statutes must be strictly construed, American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 195......
-
George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
...application for removal is made, "the record, upon its face, shows it to be one that is removable." Crehore v. Ohio & Mississippi R. Co, 131 U. S. 240, 9 S. Ct. 692, 693, 33 L. Ed. 144; Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co, supra; Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513, 7 S. Ct.......
-
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., Civ. No. 16790.
...the petition for removal, Graves v. Corbin, 1890, 132 U.S. 571, 590-591, 10 S.Ct. 196, 33 L.Ed. 462; Crehore v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 1889, 131 U.S. 240, 244-245, 9 S.Ct. 692, 33 L.Ed. (11) that the scope of the removal statutes must be strictly construed, American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 195......
-
Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky, 31761
...right to decide for itself. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U.S. 513, 7 S.Ct. 1262, 30 L.Ed. 1159; Crehore v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 131 U.S. 240, 9 S.Ct. 692, 33 L.Ed. 144; Hercules Powder Co. v. Nix, 144 Miss. 113, 109 So. 862; 54 C. J. 331-333. In 23 R. C. L. 774, this rule is anno......
-
McEldowney v. Card, 1,581.
...by the status of the parties at the commencement of the suit. Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556, 563, 7 L.Ed. 518; Crehore v. Railway Co., 131 U.S. 240, 243, 9 Sup.Ct. 692, 33 L.Ed. 144; [193 F. 483] Jackson v. Allen, 132 U.S. 27, 10 Sup.Ct. 9, 33 L.Ed. 249; Anderson v. Watt, supra, 138 U.S. 70......