ARTHUR ET AL.
v.
EDMUNDS ET AL.
A bill in equity was removed to the District Court of the United States by some of the defendants therein on the ground of a separable controversy. The other defendants, denying the existence of such a controversy and the jurisdiction of the District Court, moved to remand the case to the state court. The judge in a written opinion expressed views indicating that he thought the movants for remand had no rights in the controversy, but the only judgment rendered was one denying the motion to remand. The movants appeal, contending that the judgment is final as to them. Not so. They are still parties, and their rights stand unadjndieated. The refusal to remand is not a final and therefore not an appealable order. Bender v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 S. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537; Patten v. Cilley (C. C. A.) 50 F. 337.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Am. Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Corp. v. Leonardo Arrivabene, S.A., 280 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1960)
-
In re United Cigar Stores Co. of Am. Reisenwebers, Inc. v. Irving Tr. Co., 69 F.2d 513 (2d Cir. 1934)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1893)
- Manhattan Co. v. Blake, 148 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1893)
- Bender v. Pa. Co., 148 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1893)