MARTIN
v.
SNYDER
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 bill of complaint was filed in an Illinois state court by New York citizens against Illinois citizens, and the defendants removed the case to federal circuit court based on diverse citizenship. The Supreme Court reversed the removal and remanded the case to state court, holding that under the 1887 removal statute, only non-resident defendants could remove a case to federal court, and since these defendants were Illinois residents, they lacked the authority to effect removal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice :
This was a bill of complaint filed by Samuel F. Engs, George Engs and Henry Snyder, Jr., of the city, county and State of New York, against Morris T. Martin and Carrie E. Martin, in the Circuit Court of Lake County in the State of Illinois, on the 27th of October, 1887.
November 7, 1887, the defendants preferred a petition for the removal of the cause to. the United States Circuit Court Avithin and for the Northern District of Illinois on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the case was transferred accordingly.
The petition stated “that the controversy in said suit is between citizens -of different States, and that the petitioners Avere at the time of the commencement of this suit and still are citizens of the State of Illinois, and that all the plaintiffs Avere then and still are citizens u£ the State of New York.”
Under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 652, c. 373, it is the defendant or defendants aaJio are non-residents of the State in which the action is pending, who may remove the same into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district. The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of complainants and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to render a judgment against them for cos'ts in that court, and to remand the case to the state court. Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 533.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1951)…be heard to complain. Baggs v. Martin, supra, should govern this case. As noted in Bailey v. Texas Co., 47 F. 2d 153, 155, Baggs v. Martin displaces the view earlier expressed by the Court in Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, and Martin v. Snyder, 148 U. S. 663. We have here no joint liability between a nonresident defendant and a resident defendant, as was the situation in Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, 418. And see Alabama Southern R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206; Rupp v. Wheeling…
-
Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1894)…mand it to the state court from which it was removed. The costs in each case are to be borne by the party who brought into the Circuit Court of the United States a case not within its jurisdiction. Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527; Martin v. Snyder, 148 U. S. 663. Decrees reversed accordingly.…
-
Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 151 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1894)…ant must be a [*677] citizen of another State, or a corporation created by the laws of another State. McCormick Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41; Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202; Martin v. Snyder, 148 U. S. 663. A railroad corporation, created by the laws of one State, may carry on business- in another, either by virtue of being created a corporation by the laws of the latter State also, as in Railroad Co. v. Vance, 96 U. S. 450; Memphis & Charleston Rail…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1892)