STEVENS'S ADMINISTRATOR
v.
NICHOLS

U.S. | 1895-04-01
No. 789
157 U.S. 370 Supreme Court of the United States (1895) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 39 L. Ed. 736 · 15 S. Ct. 640 · SCDB 1894-167 · 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2211
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brewer,

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

. The Supreme Court of the State held that the refusal of the trial court to permit the defendant to amend his petition for removal was proper. Amendments of pleadings or other proceedings are as a rule matters of discretion with the trial court, and a writ of error will not lie to review its action in respect thereto. Walden v. Craig, 9 Wheat. 576; Chirac v. Reinicker, 11 Wheat. 280; United States v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; Matheson's Administrators v. Grant's Administrator, 2 How. 263.

The denial by a state court of an application to amend a petition for removal is therefore not the denial of any right secured by the Constitution of the United States. Crehore v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway, 131 U. S. 210; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bender, 148 U. S. 255. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Yazoo & Miss. Valley Ry. Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1901)
    …6; Pfeifer v. Chamberlain, 52 Mississippi, 89, 90; and even if leave had been asked to file them, it was a matter of discretion with the trial court to permit it, and a matter of state practice which cannot be inquired into here. Stevens v. Nichols, 157 U. S. 370; Mexican Central Railway Co. v. Pinckney, 149 U. S. 194, 199; Long Islamd Water Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 688. We are therefore of opinion that the Federal question was “ specially set up and claimed ” too late to be of any avail to the plaintiffs…
  • Thomas v. S. Side Elevated Ry. Co., 214 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1909)
    …[*497] Per Curiam: Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Stevens, Administrator, v. Nichols, 157 U. S. 370; Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241; Tracy v. Ginsberg, 205 U. S. 180; Rusch v. John Duncan Land & Mining Co., 211 U.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw