EX PARTE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
State Insurance Company sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court at Mobile to hear a case that had been removed from an Alabama state court. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that because the case originated in Barbour County (in the Middle District of Alabama), it should have been removed to the District Court for the Middle District rather than to the Circuit Court at Mobile, making the state court's removal order void and depriving the Mobile court of jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
Much argument is addressed to us on the construction of the act of March 3d, 1873, concerning the District and Circult Courts of Alabama, especially whether by that act the Circuit Court sitting at Mobile has circuit court jurisdiction over the whole State or not. In the view we take of the present case it is not necessary for us to decide that question.
Prior to that time the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama was a court invested with circuit court powers. Among those powers, in our opinion, was that of receiving and exercising jurisdiction over cases removed from the State courts within its territorial limits. The case before’us whs of that class. No question is raised that the requirements of the law for the rémoval were complied with. The order for the removal was made on the 11th day of January, 1873, and the papers filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court for the Southern District on the 18th day of the same month.
The.order of the State court was that “tbis¡ cause be removed out of this court, tinto the'Circuit Court of the United States at Mobile, Alabama, that beiu’g th,e Circuit Court of the United States for this district.” The county of Barbour, in which the State court sat and made this order, was in the Middle District of Alabama, and as, in our judgment, the case,-if to be removed at all, should have been removed-to the District Court for that district, to be disposed of in the exercise of its circuit court powers, we think the order of the State court was void. That it conferred.no jurisdiction of the case on the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Alabama, because it could take none as the law then stood. Whatever may be the effect of the subsequent act of March 3d, 1873, on the jurisdiction of all these courts, there-is nothing in it which removes the difficulty in the present case.
The Circuit Court at Mobile was, therefore, x’ight in refusing to hear the case, and ordeiing it to be stricken from the docket, and the mandamus now asked for is
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry. Co., 260 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1922)…luded that part. [*290] The decree is accordingly modified by making the dismissal without prejudice as to all parts of the bill, and as thus modified it is Affirmed. See Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444. See Ex parte State Insurance Co., 18 Wall. 417; Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S. 73; Knowlton v. Congress & Empire Spring Co., 14 Fed. Cas. p. 796; Hyde v. Victoria Land Co., 125 Fed. 970; Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Co. v. Whiting-Adams Co., 210 Fed. 393, 395; St. John v. Taintor, 220 Fed. 4…
-
York v. Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 143 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1944)…, § 382), then to the ten-year statute of limitations (New York Code of Civil Procedure, § 388), governing bills for relief in cases of the existence of a trust not cognizable by the courts of common law. Clarke v. Boorman’s Executors, 18 Wall. 493, 21 L.Ed. 904. If the act of 1874 created an express trust, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until there had been a repudiation of the trust. [City of] New Orleans v. Warner, 175 U.S. 120, 130, 20 S.Ct. 44, 44 L.Ed. 96. Here there was an open rep…
-
Higgins v. Cal. Prune & Apricot Grower, Inc., 3 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1924)…se wrongfully removed is do facto in the federal court, and therefore that “Action No. 5” was not in the superior court of California when this bill was filed. In consequence section 265 does not apply. In Ex parte State Insurance Co., 18 Wall. 417, 21 L. Ed. 904, it is true that an order of removal under similar circumstances was spoken of as “void,” but the remark was obiter. In Rosenbaum v. Manson, 206 App. Div. 384, 201 N. Y. S. 426, the Appellate Division for the Second Department in a similar case dec…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence