St Paul Ry Co v. Lean
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HARLAN |
| Citation | 2 S.Ct. 498,108 U.S. 212,27 L.Ed. 703 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL & C. RY. CO. v. McLEAN |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1883 |
This action was brought in the court of common pleas for the city and county of New York by Samuel McLean, a citizen of that state, against the St. Paul & Chicago Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Minnesota. After answer, the action was, upon the petition of the defendant, accompanied by a proper bond, removed for trial into the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. The sole ground of removal was that the case presented a controversy between the citizens of the different states. The removal was had before the term at which the cause could have been first tried in the state court. The first day of the next session of the federal court, succeeding the removal,
Page 213
was the seventh day of April, 1879. But the copy of the record from the state court was not filed in the federal court until April 10, 1879, on which day, upon motion of the attorney for the company, an ex parte order was made, stating the filing of such copy, the appearance of defendant, and that the action should proceed in that court as if originally commenced therein. Subsequently, April 14, 1879, the plaintiff, upon notice to defendant, moved the court to remand the cause for the failure of the defendant to file copy of the record and enter his appearance within the time prescribed by statute. This motion was resisted upon the ground, supported by affidavit, that it was by inadvertence that the record was not filed in the federal court in proper time, and that counsel did not discover that fact until April 10, 1879, when it was filed, and notice thereof, on the same day, given to plaintiff's attorney. This motion to remand was granted by an order entered May 24, 1879.
On the twenty-eighth of May, 1879, the company filed in the state court a second petition, accompanied by the required bond, for the removal of the action into the federal court upon the same grounds as those specified in its first petition. A copy of the record was promptly filed in the federal court, but the cause, upon motion of plaintiff, was again remanded by an order entered December 27, 1879.
The present writ of error brings before this court both of the orders of the circuit court remanding the cause to the state court.
C. W. Bangs and F. L. Stetson, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 213-215 intentionally omitted]
Page 215
D. M. Porter, for defendant in error.
HARLAN, J.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., Case No. CV 14–06574 MMM MRWx.
...action.” Allen v. UtiliQuest, LLC., No. CV 13–4466 SBA, 2014 WL 94337, *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 9 2014) (citing St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217, 2 S.Ct. 498, 27 L.Ed. 703 (1883) (“Assuming that the second petition for removal was filed before or at the term at which the cause co......
-
Yarbrough v. Blake, No. 1677.
...`reinvested with jurisdiction,' which cannot be defeated by another removal upon the same grounds. St. Paul & C. Railroad v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 213, 217, 2 Sup.Ct. 498, 27 L.Ed. 703. A different construction of the statute might work injurious delays in the preparation and trial of cause......
-
O'BRYAN v. Chandler, No. 73-1466.
...sufficed for removal. McLaughlin v. Hallowell, 228 U.S. 278, 33 S.Ct. 465, 57 L.Ed. 835 (1913); St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 2 S.Ct. 498, 27 L.Ed. 703 (1883); Poindexter v. Gross & Janes Co., 167 F.Supp. 151 (W.D.Ark.1958); Gray v. Stanford Research Institute, 108......
-
Enger v. Northern Finance Corporation
...5, 14 (26 L. Ed. 643); National Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 122, 1 S. Ct. 58 (27 L. Ed. 87); St. P. & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U. S. 212, 216, 2 S. Ct. 498 (27 L. Ed. 703); Crehore v. Ohio, etc., Ry. Co., 131 U. S. 240, 243, 9 S. Ct. 692 (33 L. Ed. 144); Kern v. Huidekoper, 103......
-
Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., Case No. CV 14–06574 MMM MRWx.
...action.” Allen v. UtiliQuest, LLC., No. CV 13–4466 SBA, 2014 WL 94337, *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 9 2014) (citing St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217, 2 S.Ct. 498, 27 L.Ed. 703 (1883) (“Assuming that the second petition for removal was filed before or at the term at which the cause co......
-
Yarbrough v. Blake, No. 1677.
...`reinvested with jurisdiction,' which cannot be defeated by another removal upon the same grounds. St. Paul & C. Railroad v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 213, 217, 2 Sup.Ct. 498, 27 L.Ed. 703. A different construction of the statute might work injurious delays in the preparation and trial of cause......
-
O'BRYAN v. Chandler, No. 73-1466.
...sufficed for removal. McLaughlin v. Hallowell, 228 U.S. 278, 33 S.Ct. 465, 57 L.Ed. 835 (1913); St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 2 S.Ct. 498, 27 L.Ed. 703 (1883); Poindexter v. Gross & Janes Co., 167 F.Supp. 151 (W.D.Ark.1958); Gray v. Stanford Research Institute, 108......
-
Enger v. Northern Finance Corporation
...5, 14 (26 L. Ed. 643); National Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 122, 1 S. Ct. 58 (27 L. Ed. 87); St. P. & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U. S. 212, 216, 2 S. Ct. 498 (27 L. Ed. 703); Crehore v. Ohio, etc., Ry. Co., 131 U. S. 240, 243, 9 S. Ct. 692 (33 L. Ed. 144); Kern v. Huidekoper, 103......