HEGLER
v.
FAULKNER
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.
A land dispute case was brought in Nebraska state court seeking recovery of a 320-acre tract and rental profits, but was subsequently tried in federal Circuit Court without proper documentation of removal or jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case because the federal court lacked jurisdiction, as there was no record of the case's removal from state court and the parties' citizenship was never established.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the. Circuit Court of the United States for the District, of Nebraska.
There is in the record presented here a transcript showing that the action was first brought October 4, .1878, in the District Court of Richardson County, in the State of Nebraska, in which the original pétition or declaration was filed. The suit was to recover the possession of a tract of land situated in that county, containing 320 acres, and for rents and profits alleged to be of the value of $$500. The defendants entered their appearance on May 6, 1879, and leave was granted them to answer in thirty days. The plaintiff was ruled to reply in. fifty days, and the cause continued. An answer was filed May 17, 1879, and this appears to have been done in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, in which all the subsequent proceedings in the progress of the cause were taken.
Ther,e is no evidence of any petition or order for the removal of the case into this latter court from the state court sitting in the county of Richardson, nqr is there any statement anywhere of the citizenship of the parties. It appears that a trial was thereafter had and a verdict rendered for the defendants. The only attempt made to' show any jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, in which that-trial took place, is a short stipulation between the parties made in that court December 8, 1882, by which it was agreed that the amount in controversy in the action exceeded five thousand dollars.
A judgment in favor of the defendants was entered upon this verdict, to which the present writ of error is directed. It is very clear that this verdict and judgment must be set aside, because the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case.
. The jud-gment of the court helow is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Bank OF Commerce OF Dallas v. ALL Am. Assurance Co., 583 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1978)…of the stock, has none of the rights normally accorded shareholders, and has no right to sell the collateral for its own account. Indeed, its relationship is of a fiduciary character, Easton v. German-American Bank, 127 U.S. 532, 537, 8 S.Ct. 1297, 32 L.Ed. 210 (1888), and it must account for all proceeds in excess of the debt and profits accruing as a result of possession of the collateral. Restatement of Security § 27 (1941). Pretextual collateral loans or instances where the ownership of the security i…
-
Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nev. Nat'l Bank, 270 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1926)…ourt and the respective parties took; and whether, indeed, there was a proper petition for removal filed in time.5 On this record it seems to me that this Court is without jurisdiction and that the lower federal courts were also. Hegler v. Faulkner, 127 U. S. 482. As stated in West v. Aurora City, 6 Wall. 139, 142: “ It is equally fatal to the supposed right of removal that the record presents only a fragment of a cause, unintelligible except by reference to other matters not sent up. from the State court a…
-
Wharton v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank of Green Ridge, 119 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1941)…foreclosure by action. Peterson v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 339 Mo. 700, 98 S.W. 2d 770, 775, 108 A.L.R. 583; Plum v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co., 89 Mo. 162, 1 S.W. 217, 219. Compare Easton v. German-American Bank, 127 U.S. 532, 538, 8 S.Ct. 1297, 32 L.Ed. 210. The order appealed from is affirmed. An opinion in this case was filed February 4, 1941. Subsequently a petition for rehearing was granted and the ease was resubmitted.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence