SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
v.
STEWART
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.
Southern Pacific Company sought removal of a state court case to federal court, and the Supreme Court initially dismissed the case based on the assumption that removal was justified solely by diversity of citizenship. Upon discovering that the removal petition also alleged a federal question arising under the Interstate Commerce Act, the Court granted the petition for rehearing, set aside its dismissal order, and restored the case to the docket, recognizing that federal question jurisdiction provided an independent basis for removal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice Day.
The opinion in this case was handed down on December 17, 1917 (ante, 359). The cause was submitted on a motion to dismiss which was sustained. The printed record did not contain the proceedings upon the application to remove the cause from the state court. The briefs of counsel upon both sides, upon which the case was submitted, stated that the case was removed because of diversity of citizenship. Treating these statements as the equivalent of a stipulation the court decided the case and rendered judgment. It now appears by a certified copy of the record on removal, filed by the plaintiff in error, that the removal petition contained an allegation that the complaint alleged a cause of action arising under the Interstate Commerce Act, and this fact, as well as diversity of citizenship, was made a ground of removal. In this view it follows that as our order of dismissal rested upon the assumption that the removal was because of diversity of citizenship only, the petition for rehearing must be granted, the order of dismissal set aside, and the cause restored to the docket.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sperry OIL & GAS Co. v. Chisholm, 264 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1924)…arose under the laws of the United States,2 the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals was not made final by the provisions of § 128 of the Judicial Code and § 3 of the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726. Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 245 U. S. 562. Therefore the appeal was properly allowed under § 241 of the Judicial Code; and the writ of certiorari must be dismissed. Chisholm is an enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation, of the half-blood. Pursuant to the Cherokee Agreement — embodied in t…