IN RE SHERMAN
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
Phis motion is denied. The object of the petitioner, is to compel the Circuit Court of th'e United States for the Southern District of New York to set aside an order granting a motion to remand a suit against Mm, wMch he had caused to be removed from a state court, and to proceed to a rehearing, on the ground that at the former hearing the court did not have before it and did not see the complaint in the case on which he relied to show his right to a removal. The petition makes it apparent that the motion was submitted by both parties, and decided on the papers then furnished. If, in point of fact, the complaint was not 'included among those papers, and it had been omitted by mistake, a rehearing might have been granted in the discretion of the court upon a showing to that effect, but this court has no power to require that court to do so by mandamus.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. Young, 31 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1893)
-
Madrith Bennett Chambers v. The United States, 451 F.2d 1045 (Ct. Cl. 1971)…8, and in the recent case of United States v. Mouat, [124 U.S.] 303, [88 S.Ct. 505]. What we have here said is but a repetition of what was there authoritatively declared. [Id. at 532, 8 S.Ct. at 597] Again, in United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888), the court said: * * * Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the president, or of one of the courts of justice or heads of departments authorized by law to m…1 / 2
-
Bucy v. Nev. Const. Co., 125 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1942)…absence of a rule, I have assumed that the administrative practice is a matter of which this court may inform itself.’ The last sentence in the quotation from 23 R.C.L. § 195, quoted in the main opinion, is predicated on In re Sherman, Jan., 1888, 124 U.S. 364, 8 S.Ct. 505, 31 L.Ed. 423. The ease is not decisive of the proposition stated. Rule 82 provides that “these rules shall not be construed to extend * * * the jurisdiction of the district courts." The state court had made the usual order allowing t…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364 (U.S. 1868)
- The United States v. Kirkpatrick and others, 9 Wheat. 720 (U.S. 1824)
- R.R. Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 (U.S. 1874)
- Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131 (U.S. 1846)
- Sherman v. Grinnell, 123 U.S. 679 (U.S. 1887)
- The Divina Pastora.-The Spanish Consul, 4 Wheat. 52 (U.S. 1819)
- Ex parte Jordan, 94 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1876)
- The Life & Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 571 (U.S. 1835)
- The Postmaster Gen. of the United States v. Trigg, 11 Pet. 173 (U.S. 1837)
- Joseph Mandeville and others v. Burt, 8 Pet. 256 (U.S. 1834)