HOLLAND
v.
CHAMBERS
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.
Holland, a defendant in a libel suit brought in Missouri state court, petitioned to remove the case to federal court more than two years after the suit began and after trial had already occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's order remanding the case back to state court, holding that under the 1875 removal statute, a petition for removal must be filed before or at the term when the cause could first be tried, and Holland's delayed petition filed long after trial did not comply with this requirement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error brought under sec. 5 of the act of March 3d, 1875, ch. 137,18 Stat. 470, to review an order of the Circuit Court remanding a cause which had been removed from a State court. The facts are as follows:
The suit was begun in the State court-on the 19th of July, 1879, by Chambers, as plaintiff, against C. M. Swope and Joseph B. Holland, defendants, to recover damages for writing and publishing an alleged libel. An answer was filed by Holland on the 6th of October, 1879, and an amended answer on January 24th, 1880. A reply was filed February 5th. At the April "term, 1880, a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for $20,000 in favor of-Chambers. This judgment was afterwards set aside by the court and a new trial granted. On the 20th of-January, 1882, Holland petitioned for the removal of the. suit as against him to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. " The petition set forth that Holland was a citizen of Illinois, and both Swope and Chambers citizens of Missouri:
“ That said suit is one in which there can be a final determination of the controversy, so far as it concerns your petitioner, without the presence of the said defendant Swope as a party in said cause, and that your petitioner desires to remove said suit as against your petitioner,' and so far as concerns him, into the Circuit Court, . '. . . in pursuance of the act of Congress in that behalf provided, to wit, the Revised Statutes of the United States, section 639, subdivision second.”
. Upon these facts the order of. the Circuit Court remanding the Cause was clearly right. The second subdivision of sec. 639 was repealed by the act of March 3d, 1875, ch. 137. That was settled in Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, and King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395.
Under the act of 1875 the petition for removal must be filed • in the .State court before or at the term at which the cause could be first tried. This suit could not only have been tried, but it actually was tried once, nearly, two years before the petition to remove. Such being the case, it is needless to in quire whether there might have been a removal nnder that act if an application had been made in time and in proper form.
The order remanding the cause is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ayers & Another v. Watson, 113 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1885)…nevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 41; Railroad Co. v. McKinley, 99 U. S. 147. But we have held that this clause of § .639 was superseded and repealed by the act of 1875. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, 410; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395; Holland v. Chambers, 110 U. S. 59. We are compelled, therefore, to examine the effect of the act of 1875 upon the jurisdiction of the court when the application is made at a later period of. time than is allowed by that act. By § 2 of the act of 1875, any suit of a civil nature, at…
-
Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1892)
-
The Cnty. OF Todd v. Louise M. Loegering for the Heirs of Arthur Simonson, 297 F.2d 470 (8th Cir. 1961)…d. 705; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 L.Ed. 179; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 L.Ed. 484; Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186, 24 L.Ed. 428; Blake v. McKim, 103 U.S. 336, 26 L.Ed. 563; American Bible Society v. Price, 110 U.S. 61, 3 S.Ct. 440, 28 L.Ed. 70; Continental Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380.” Applying the rule in those cases, the trial court, Loegering v. County of Todd, D.C.Minn., 185 F.Supp. 134, 136 (1960), observes: “In both of the above cases the plain…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1881)
- King v. Cornell, 106 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1882)