Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ren v. Wisconsin Valley R. R., 6 Biss. 431, F. C. 17,204, holding questions of jurisdiction must, after removal, be decided in Federal court; Ellerman v. New Orleans, etc., R. R., 2 Woods, 124, F. C. 4,382, holding appeal does not lie to order of State court for removal to Federal; Dennis v. County of Alachua, 3 Woods, 690, F. C. 3,791, holding approval by State court of removal bond, not necessary to jurisdiction of Federal court; Mahoney Mining Co. v. Bennett, 4 Sawy. 290, F. C. 8,968, affirming rule; Miller v. Tobin, 9 Sawy. 407, 18 Fed. 613, holding depositions, taken before referee of State court, after filing petition for removal, form no part of record; Friedman v. Israel, 26 Fed. 802, 804, directing marshal to take from sheriff property held under attachment, after removal: Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. 852, holding injunction may be granted to stay proceedings in State court after removal; Wilson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 562, holding filing of petition and bond i State court, and of copy of record in Federal court, immediatel transfers jurisdiction; B. & O. R. R. v. Ford, 35 Fed. 172, holding appearance in State court, after filing petition for removal, confers no jurisdiction thereon; Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 40 Fed. 186, holding time in which to answer, under State code, suspended by filing removal petition; M'Mullen v. Northern Pacific Ry., 57 Fed. 17, holding filing of bond and petition for removal divests State court of jurisdiction ipso facto; Springer v. Howes. 69 Fed. 850, holding no order of State court necessary to effect removal; Postal Telegraph Co. v. Southern Ry., 88 Fed. 805, holding question as to jurisdictional amount necessary to removal, must be decided by Federal court after petition filed; Sharp v. Gutcher. 74 Ind. 363, holding answer, setting up filing of removal petition. sufficient bar to further proceedings; Ryan v. Mathews, 64 Iowa. 250, 20 N. W. 174, dismissing appeal after removal of cause: Winslow v. Collins, 110 N. C. 121, 14 S. E. 513, holding it error to allow a plaintiff to amend complaint after filing of removal petition; Baltimore, etc., Ry. v. Fulton, 59 Ohio St. 578, 53 N. E. 266. 44 L. R. A. 521, holding, after removal, plaintiff cannot recommence action in State court; State v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 189, 22 Am. Rep. 695, affirming rule; Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 128, 17 Am. Rep. 145, denying removal of claim against insolvent estate. Cited generally in Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. Cary, 28 Ohio St. 214, to point that question of Federal jurisdiction must be controlled by Federal decisions; dissenting opinions in Railway v. Stringer, 32 Ohic St. 485, application vague; Johnson v. Brewers' Ins. Co., 51 Wis 584, 9 N. W. 660, majority holding proceedings in State court, after removal, valid in collateral actions, unless set aside. See 13 Am. Rep. 299, and 23 Am. Rep. 144, notes, on removal.

Distinguished in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 317, 25 L. 669. and State v. Chue Fan, 14 Sawy. 579. 42 Fed. 866, holding petitions for removal presented no case therefor; Birdseye v. Shæffer. 37 VOL. VIII — 16

Fed. 826, 828, holding jurisdiction restored to State court when cause is remanded; Indianapolis, etc., Ry. v. Risley, 50 Ind. 63, holding State court may disregard insufficient removal petition and proceed; Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 508, holding State Supreme Court has jurisdiction of bill of exceptions to trial court's order granting removal; Blair v. West Point Mfg. Co., 7 Neb. 153, holding further proceedings not void where petition failed to show cause removable; National Bank v. Dodge, 42 N. J. L. 320, holding State court's jurisdiction not ipso facto suspended by filing removal petition; Lawson v. Railroad, 112 N. C. 399, 17 S. E. 172, holding State jurisdiction not ousted unless petition shows petitioner's right to removal; Texas, etc., Ry. v. McAllister, 59 Tex. 356, upholding right of State court to pass on sufficiency of petition for removal.

Removal of causes.- - Party who, having failed in his effort to obtain removal, is forced to trial, and defends action in State courts under protest, loses none of his rights by so defending, pp. 224, 225.

Cited and principle applied in Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 475, 25 L. 600, under similar circumstances; Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 141, 26 L. 98, affirming rule; Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 492, 26 L. 357, holding such defense, upon merits, does not prevent raising question of jurisdiction in Federal court; Railroad Co. v. Koontz. 104 U. S. 14, 26 L. 645, affirming rule; Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 123, 27 L. 89, 1 S. Ct. 61, holding no protest necessary to protect rights; Richards v. Rock Rapids, 31 Fed. 506, reaffirining rule; Waite v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Fed. 770, holding removal not waived by agreement that case shall stand under rule to plead at next term; Mecke v. Valley Town Co., 89 Fed. 115, Mecke v. Valley Town Co., 89 Fed. 211, Stix v. Keith, 90 Ala. 125, 7 So. 424, Upham v. Scoville, 40 Ark. 171, New Orleans v. Seixas, 35 La. Ann. 37, Stanley v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 62 Mo. 511, Benedict v. Johnson, 4 S. Dak. 392, 57 N. W. 68, and Northern, etc., Ry. v. McMullen, 86 Wis. 508, 56 N. W. 632, all holding party loses no rights of removal by appearing in State court on failure to obtain its order for removal.'

Removal of causes. Act of March 2, 1867, permitting removal at any time before final hearing or trial, means hearing or trial, final in the cause as it then stood when application was made, p. 225.

Cited and principle relied upon in Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 43, 22 L. 477, holding removal cannot be had pending motion for new trial; Ayers v. Watson, 113 U. S. 597, 28 L. 1094, 5 S. Ct. 642, holding mistrial, through disagreement of jury, did not take away right of remoral; Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. Bates, 119 U. S. 467, 30 L. 438, 7 S. Ct. 286, holding cause removable pending new trial; Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U. S. 466, 35 L. 1083, 12 S. Ct. 209, affirming S. C., 13 Sawy. 49, 32 Fed. 425, construing act of March

ANN

3, 1887; Neudecker v. Rosenbaum, 19 Blatchf. 37, 6 Fed. 98, holding removal, after new trial granted, but before such trial, too late; Minnett v. Milwaukee, etc., Ry., 3 Dill. 464, F. C. 9,636, holding application for removal may be made after new trial is granted and before commencement thereof; Brice v. Somers, 1 Flipp. 577, F. C. 1,856, holding act authorizes removal only before final judgment in court of original jurisdiction; McCallon v. Waterman, 1 Flipp. 653, F. C. 8,675, holding removal cannot be had after entry of default and before same has been set aside; Miller v. Tobin, 9 Sawy. 411, 18 Fed. 616, and Horn v. Dillon, 29 Fed. 468, both holding hearing on demurrer not a trial under act of 1875; Nale v. Foster, 12 Sawy. 429, 31 Fed. 57, holding petition for removal for local prejudice, may be filed after mistrial; Fisk v. Henarie, 13 Sawy. 49, 32 Fed. 425, holding application may be made after mistrial; Whitehouse v. Continental Ins. Co., 2 Fed. 499, holding, under act of 1875, removal might be had at first term following completion of pleadings; McHenry v. New York, etc., R. R., 25 Fed. 67, holding non-final order of judgment, pro confesso, will not defeat removal; Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed. 523, 11 L. R. A. 569, and n., holding removal for prejudice, under act of 1888, may be had pending jury trial de novo in appellate court; Davis v. Chicago, etc., Ry.. 46 Fed. 308, holding removal, under act of 1888, too late when made after trial, resulting in disagreement; Crane v. Reeder, 6 Fed. Cas. 760. holding cause once tried, but pending retrial, removable; Elliott v. Stocks, 67 Ala. 299, holding affidavit and removal bond. filed in time, although case has been continued by petitioner: Brayley v. Hedges, 53 Iowa, 584, 5 N. W. 750, holding removal may be had after reversal of judgment and remanding for new trial: Galpin v. Critchlow, 112 Mass. 346, 17 Am. Rep. 176, holding cause not removable after trial on merits, resulting in disagreement of jury; Chandler v. Coe, 56 N. H. 185, 22 Am. Rep. 438, holding cause not removable after verdict, although new trial is granted; Clark v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 11 R. I. 36, holding cause removable after trial, resulting in disagreement of jury; Jones v. Foster, 61 Wis. 28, 30, 20 N. W. 786, holding words "before trial," in section 639, revised statutes, mean before any trial. Cited, arguendo, in State v. Newman, 24 Fla. 40, 42, 3 So. 470, and Rosenfield v. Condict, 44 Tex. 466, right of removal not lost by trial resulting in judgment reversed on appeal; Jackson v. Gould, 74 Me. 575, Mathis v. Railway Co., 53 S. C. 258, 31 S. E. 244, generally. See 12 Am. Rep. 552, 13 Am. Rep. 295, and 22 Am. Rep. 80, notes, on removal. Cited, but application denied, in Sutherland v. Jersey City B. R., 22 Fed. 350, affirming rule, but holding bond defective. Distinguished in Alley v. Nott, 111 U. S. 476, 28 L. 492, 4 S. Ct. 496. holding, under act of March 3, 1875, removal may not be had after hearing of demurrer, on ground that complaint fails to state cause of action.

Removal of causes.---- Under Ohio laws, permitting defeated party a second trial as of right, first trial is not a "final hearing or trial," within removal act of March 2, 1867, p. 225.

Cited in Railroad Co. v. McKinley, 99 U. S. 147, 25 L. 273, holding, after one trial, right to another must be perfected before removal may be had; Field v. Williams, 24 Fed. 514, 516, holding cause may be removed after decision on demurrer.

Distinguished in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Walrath, 11 Biss. 435, 16 Fed. 162, and Young v. Andes Ins. Co., 1 Flipp. 602, F. C. 18,151, both holding, under act of 1875, cause cannot be removed after trial, although new trial is ordered; Whittier v. Hartford Ins. Co.. 55 N. H. 143, 144, 146, 20 Am. Rep. 186, 188, 190, holding, under section 639, revised statutes, petition cannot be filed after trial, although action is one where review lies.

Removal of causes.- Act of March 2, 1867, respecting removals to Federal courts, is constitutional, p. 226.

Cited and relied upon in Andrews v. Garrett, 1 Flipp. 448, F. C. 375, upholding removal act of 1875; Birdseye v. Shaffer, 37 Fed. 824, holding Congress possesses full power over inferior Federal courts.

Miscellaneous.- Underwood v. McVeigh, 131 U. S. 123 (appendix). 21 L. 954, as to proper direction of writs of error; United States v. Burdick, 1 Dak. 142, 46 N. W. 573, no application; Quigly v. Central Pacific R. R., 11 Nev. 373, and Mix v. Andes Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 56, 30 Am. Rep. 262, both holding corporation may make affidavit for removal through its agent.

19 Wall. 227-241, 22 L. 80, DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK v. UNITED STATES.

Internal revenue.- Under internal revenue act of July 13, 1866, undistributed earnings of savings banks, added to their contingent funds, are taxable, p. 236.

Cited in United States v. State Bank, 27 Fed. Cas. 1299, holding complaint in action for failure to return earnings must specifically state character thereof.

Statutes. Such construction of a proviso as renders it repugnant to the body of the act, is inadmissible, p. 236.

Cited and applied in United States v. One Hundred and Thirtytwo Packages, 65 Fed. 983, discussing office and Interpretation of provisos; Chattanooga, etc., R. R. v. Evans, 66 Fed. 814, 31 . S. App. 432, holding proviso to particular section of act, not applicable to others, unless plainly so intended; Carter v. Hobbs, 92 Fed. 599, construing bankruptcy act of 1898; Cook v. Auditor-General, 79 Mich. 108, 44 N. W. 422, construing provision for reassess ment of swamp lands.

[ocr errors]

Statutes. Where judicial construction has been given to a statute, re-enactment thereof is generally held to be in effect a legis lative adoption of that construction, p. 237.

Statutes. Revenue commissioner's construction of internal revenue act of 1866, was not legislatively adopted by re-enactment of said act in 1870, p. 237.

Actions. Where statute creates a right and provides a particular remedy for its enforcement, latter is generally exclusive of all common-law remedies, p. 238.

Cited in United States v. Truck's Admx., 28 Fed. 846, holding common-law action not maintainable to enforce payment of legacy tax of 1864; Hanson Co. v. Gray, S. Dak., 80 N. W. 175, holding action will not lie for taxes on personal property, statute providing remedy by distress and sale.

United States.-Common-law rule that king is not bound by any act of Parliament, unless named therein by special and particular words, is equally applicable to this government, p. 239.

Cited and principle applied in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 263, 22 L. 279, holding debt due United States, not barred by debtor's discharge in bankruptcy; Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 515, 37 L. 262, 13 S. Ct. 421, holding statute of limitations available by, but not against, United States; United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 159 U. S. 554, 40 L. 258, 16 S. Ct. 72, holding decree of Circuit Court of Appeals not final against United States; United States v. Humphries, 3 Hughes, 206, F. C. 15,422, holding priority of government's judgment lien not lost by failure to docket same; United States v. Shaw, 39 Fed. 436, 3 L. R. A. 234, holding limitation as to amount in controversy necessary to confer jurisdiction on Circuit Court, not applicable where United States is plaintiff; In re Baker, 96 Fed. 957, holding discharge in bankruptcy does not release debt to government; Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 112, 23 Am. St. Rep. 453, 26 Pac. 646, holding State property not subject to mechanic's lien; Skelly v. School District, 103 Cal. 656, 37 Pac. 644, holding school district not liable to garnishment by third party against its creditor; People v. Dennison, 84 N. Y. 282, holding authority to render judgment against State in courts thereof, cannot be claimed under general laws; State v. Georgia Co., 112 N. C. 38, 17 S. E. 11, 19 L. R. A. 486, holding State not bound by statute providing specific remedy for tax collection by officers; State v. Metschan, 32 Or. 384, 46 Pac. 793, 41 L. R. A. 694, holding State may maintain suit to enjoin misapplication of funds without showing special injury. See 15 Am. Dec. 382, and 26 Am. Dec. 36, notes, on this subject.

Distinguished in State v. Piazza, 66 Miss. 430, 6 So. 317, holding State not exempt from fair interpretation of statutory language.

« ForrigeFortsett »