Walker v. Collins
| Decision Date | 10 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
| Citation | 42 L.Ed. 76,17 S.Ct. 738,167 U.S. 57 |
| Parties | WALKER et al. v. COLLINS et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. E. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.
A. P. Jetmore, for defendants in error.
The action below was commenced in April, 1890, in the district court of Harvey county, Kan., by Collins and Bretch, to recover damages from the present plaintiffs in error for an alleged unlawful seizure of goods and chattels, the property of the plaintiffs. In their answer the defendants averred that during the times mentioned in the complaint the defendant Walker was the marshal of the United States for the district of Kansas, and the other defendants were his deputies, and that the seizure complained of was made under the authority of an order of attachment issued out of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, in an action therein pending, in which E. H. Van Ingen & Co. were plaintiffs and H. Cannon was defendant, and it was averred that the goods were liable to be seized, by virtue of said order of attachment, as the property of said Cannon. Thereafter the defendants made application for the removal of the cause into the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, upon the ground that the action and the defense thereto arose under the laws of the United States. The application was denied, but subsequently, on application of the plaintiffs, the court reconsidered its decision, rescinded its former action, and allowed the application; the order entered reciting, 'The plaintiffs interposing no objection thereto.'
On June 4, 1890, after the removal of the cause into the federal court, a motion was filed by the attorneys for plaintiffs to remand the cause to the district court of Harvey county, Kan., for the reason that the record and petition for removal showed no sufficient ground for such removal, and that the record and petition did not set up and whow sufficient and petition did not set up and show sufficient court jurisdiction over the cause by removal. The record does not show that any action was taken by the court upon this motion.
A judgment recovered by the plaintiff was reversed by the circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. 4 U. S. App. 406, 1 C. C. A. 642, and 50 Fed. 737. Upon a second trial, in November, 1892, the plaintiff again recovered judgment, which, on error, was affirmed by the appellate court. 19 U. S. App. 307, 8 C. C. A. 1, and 59 Fed. 70. A writ of error was allowed, the cause was brought to this court, and it is now sought to obtain a reversal of the judgment of affirmance rendered by the circuit court of appeals.
Various specifications of error are assigned in this court. We need, however, only consider the first specification discussed in the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, to wit that the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Abernathy
... ... Giles, 118 U.S. 596, 7 Sup.Ct ... 32, 30 L.Ed. 269); (3) the plaintiff's complaint ... determines the nature of the case ( Walker v ... Collins, 167 U.S. 57, 17 Sup.Ct. 738, 42 L.Ed. 76; ... A.G.S.R. Co. v. Thompson, supra); (4) it cannot be assumed ... that either ... ...
-
State v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
...North Dakota, and is not a Federal question. Tennessee v. Union Planters Bank, 152 U.S. 454; Chapple v. Waterworth, 155 U.S. 102; Walker v. Collins, 167 U.S. 57. decisions are assembled in Stanfield v. Umattlie River Water Users Asso. 152 F. 596. Reasonable regulations to safeguard the reso......
- Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. McGinty
-
Gay v. Ruff
...268 F. 686; Florida v. Huston (D.C.) 283 F. 687; Ford Motor Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co. (D.C.) 13 F.(2d) 415. 10 Walker v. Collins, 167 U.S. 57, 17 S.Ct. 738, 42 L.Ed. 76; Mayo v. Dockery (C.C.) 108 F. 897. 11 Compare Bock v. Perkins, 139 U.S. 628, 11 S.Ct. 677, 35 L.Ed. 314; Feibelman v. Pa......
-
A Modified Theory of the Law of Federal Courts: the Case of Arising-under Jurisdiction
...See McCain v. City of Des Moines, 174 U.S. 168 (1899); St. Joseph and G.I.R. Co. v. Steele, 167 U.S. 659, 662 (1897); Walker v. Collins, 167 U.S. 57, 59 (1897); Ex parte Lennon, 166 U.S. 548, 553-54 (1897); Starin v. City of New York, 115 U.S. 248, 257 (1885); see also Woolhandler and Colli......