VANNEVAR
v.
BRYANT
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 resident plaintiff sued a mix of resident and non-resident defendants, and the non-resident defendants sought to remove the case to federal circuit court after trial had already occurred in state court. The Supreme Court affirmed the state court's refusal to transfer the case, holding that removal is permitted only before the final hearing or trial of a suit on its merits, not after a trial has concluded, and that the Circuit Court cannot review state court proceedings or determine whether a second trial should be granted.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. In the case of the Sewing Machine Companies, * it was held that im action upon a contract by a plaintiff, who was a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought, against two defendants, who were citizens of other States, and a third who was a citizen of the same State as the plaintiff, was not removable to the Circuit Court under this act upon the petition of the two non-resident defendants. Without considering the question whether, in an action of tort by a resident plaintiff, a non-resident defendant can, at a proper stage of the proceedings and upon proper showing, remove the cause as against himself, to the Circuit Court, under the act of 27th July, 1866, † we are clearly of the opinion that this case comes within the principle settled in that of the Sewing Machine Companies. The petition was filed under the act of 1867, for a removal of the suit, and not, under the act of 1866, for its removal as against the nou-resident defendants. The transfer was also properly refused for another reason. The act authorizes the petition for removal to be filed “ at any time before the final hearing or trial of the suit.” The hearing or trial, here referred to, is the examination of the facts in issue. Hearing applies to suits in chancery and trial to actions at law. In Insurance Company v. Dunn, ‡ it was held, that after a motion for a newT trial had been granted, a removal might be had. But after one trial the right to a second miist be perfected before a demand for the transfer can properly be made. Every trial of a cause is final until, in some form, it has been vacated. Causes cannot be removed to the Circuit Court for a review of the action of the State court, but only for trial. The Circuit Court cannot, after one trial in a State court, determine whether there shall be another. That is for the State court. To authorize the removal,-the action must, at the time of the application, be actually pending for trial. Such was not the case here. Judgment affirmed. * 18 Wallace, 553. ‡ 19 Wallace, 214.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Ayers & Another v. Watson, 113 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1885)…e.” This language has been held to apply to the last and final hearing. A mis-trial by disagreement of the jury did not take away the right of removal. See Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214; Stevenson v. Williams, 19 Wall. 572; Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 41; Railroad Co. v. McKinley, 99 U. S. 147. But we have held that this clause of § .639 was superseded and repealed by the act of 1875. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, 410; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395; Holland v. Chambers, 110 U. S. 59. We are compell…
-
Graves v. Corbin, 132 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1890)
-
Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1892)…d set aside a verdict and granted a new trial, or if the appellate court had reversed the judgment and remanded the case for trial de novo, it was not too late to apply to remove the cause under the act of 1867 and subdivision 3. Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 41; Jifkins v. Sweetzer, 102 U. S. 177; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Bates, 119 U. S. 464, 467, and cases cited. But these and like decisions were inapplicable to proceedings under the act of 1875, as the petition was thereby required to be filed “ bef…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence