DUNCAN
v.
GEGAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a case is removed from state court to federal circuit court, the circuit court takes the case in the condition it was left by the state court and has no power to alter prior determinations that had been finally settled by state appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision that the appellant was bound by the state supreme court's prior judgment establishing the priority of mortgages, which the circuit court was only authorized to implement through distribution of sale proceeds without modification.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The transfer of the suit from the State court to the Circuit Court did not vacate what had been done in the State court previous to the removal. The Circuit Court, when a transfer is effected, takes fhe case in the condition it was when the State court was deprived of its jurisdiction. The Circuit Court has no more power over what was done before the removal than the State court would have had if the suit had remained there. It takes the case up where the State court left it off.
Before the suit of Gegan v. Bowman and Duncan was removed to the Circuit Court, the rank of the appellant’s mort-' gage bad been finally settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State on appeal. That was no longer an open question between the parties to that litigation.. All the court from which the removal was afterwards made could.do was to distribute the proceeds of the sale of the property in accord-' anee with the directions of the Supreme Court. It had no power whatever to change the order of priorities as settled by the appellate court.
The question of the right to make the transfer is not before us. Duncan, who caused the removal to be made, is the only party who complains of the decree below, and he cannot object here to what has been done below by his own prqcurement. We confess it is not easy to see how a party could swear to his belief, that from prejudice or local influence he could not obtain justice, in the State court, when all that court had to do was to divide the proceeds of a sale by paying them out in a certain way, and as to which there was apparently no possible chance of dispute. But still it was so sworn, and the Circuit Court took jurisdiction against the motion of the opposite party. Of that no complaint is now made by the appellees.
It follows, then, that, whether the proceedings which were afterwards had in the Circuit Court at the instance of the appellant were part of the original suit removed from the State court, or a new and distinct suit begun in the Circuit Court by the appellant himself after the removal, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State on the appeal in the original suit concludes him-as to his rights thus litigated and disposed of. As it is apparent that the questions presented by the new pleadings in' the Circuit Court are in all respects the same as those settled by the Supreme Court of the State, it follows that the Circuit Court was right in holding that the appellant was " concluded by that decree.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. OF Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1974)…give injunctions or other orders greater effect after removal to federal court than they would have had if the case had remained in state court. After removal, the federal court “takes the case up where the State court left it off.” Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810, 812 (1880). The “full force and effect” provided state court orders after removal of the case to federal court was not intended to be more than the force and effect the orders would have had in state court.10 [*437] More importantly, once a case ha…
-
Ex parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713 (U.S. 1885)…nact that an order made in the State court, which affected or might affect the mode of trial yet to be had, could change or modify the express directions of an act of Congress on.that subject.. Nor does the language of the court in Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810, go so far. When it is'there said that “the Circuit' Court has no more power over what was done before the removal than the State court Avould have had if the suit had remained,” it is in effect affirmed that it has at least that much power. There c…
-
Butner v. Ingrid Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1963)…or objections available to him under these rules within 20 days after the receipt through service or otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the action or proceeding is based * * . Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U.S. 810, 25 L.Ed. 875 (1880). The removal statute at that time allowed removal at any time up until final judgment had been rendered rather than the present twenty-day period. A final decision on the merits had been entered in state court and appealed all t…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence