LOWE
v.
WILLIAMS
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.
The Supreme Court held that a petition for removal from state court to federal circuit court must be filed before the final judgment in the court of original jurisdiction, and that a petition filed in an appellate court after final judgment is untimely and thus improper, regardless of whether a federal question is presented in the case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 558, provided for the removal of causes from the State courts to the circuit courts, under certain circumstances, when due application was made “ before the final hearing or trial of the suit.” This we held in Stevenson v. Williams, 19 Wall. 575, to mean “ before final judgment in the court of original jurisdiction where the suit is brought.” To the same effect are Vannever v. Bryant, 21 id. 43, and Fashnacht v. Frank, 23 id. 419, decided since. The act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 471, under which the removal was attempted in this case, requires the petition to be filed “ before the final trial.” The decisions under the act of 1867 are, therefore, equally applicable to that of 1875. The petition foi removal was filed in the appellate court, and, of course, long after the final judgment in the court of original jurisdiction.
Under these circumstances, we consider that, while a Federal question is presented by the record, it is one that has already been settled, and needs no further argument".
The motion to dismiss denied ; that to affirm granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1908)
-
Riverside OIL & Ref. Co. v. Dudley, 33 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1929)…, accident or mistake (Truly v. Wanzer, 5 How. 141, 142, 12 L. Ed. 88; Davis v. Tileston, 6 How. 114, 12 L. Ed. 366; Humphreys v. Leggett, 9 How. 297, 13 L. Ed. 145; Hendrickson v. Hinckley, 17 How. 443, 15 L. Ed. 123; Crim v. Handley, 94 U. S. 652, 24 L. Ed. 216; Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157, 24 L. Ed. 422; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 675, 6 S. Ct. 901, 29 L. Ed. 1013; Knox County v. Harshman, 133 U. S. 152, 10 S. Ct. 257, 33 L. Ed. 586; Simon v. Southern R. Co., 236 U. S. 115, 35 S.…1 / 2
-
Concord Improvement Co. v. Reichelderfer, 65 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1933)…t the rulings of the court were correct;” and that presumption in this case is confirmed by the fact that no complaint in that regard is made in the statement filed as the foundation of the motion for a new trial. Crim v. Handley, 94 U. S. 652, 656, 24 L. Ed. 216. The bill of exceptions in this ease is silent in respect of the jurisdictional facts. Neither does it purport to give the substance of all the testimony in the case. It recites “that the foregoing is the substance of all the testimony bearing upon…