Arthur v. Edmunds

Fifth Circuit

Arthur v. Edmunds

66 F.2d 21, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 1933

DocketNo. 6894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 F.2d 21 (Arthur v. Edmunds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur v. Edmunds, 66 F.2d 21, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527 (5th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

A bill in equity was removed to the District Court of the United States by some of the defendants therein on the ground of a separable controversy. The other defendants, denying the existence of such a controversy and the jurisdiction of the District Court, moved to remand the case to the state court. The judge in a written opinion expressed views indicating that he thought the movants for remand had no rights in the controversy, but the only judgment rendered was one denying the motion to remand. The movants appeal, contending that the judgment is final as to them. Not so. They are still parties, and their rights stand unadjndieated. The refusal to remand is not a final and therefore not an appealable order. Bender v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 S. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537; Patten v. Cilley (C. C. A.) 50 F. 337.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

A bill in equity was removed to the District Court of the United States by some of the defendants therein on the ground of a separable controversy. The other defendants, denying the existence of such a controversy and the jurisdiction of the District Court, moved to remand the case to the state court. The judge in a written opinion expressed views indicating that he thought the movants for remand had no rights in the controversy, but the only judgment rendered was one denying the motion to remand. The movants appeal, contending that the judgment is final as to them. Not so. They are still parties, and their rights stand unadjndieated. The refusal to remand is not a final and therefore not an appealable order. Bender v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 S. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537; Patten v. Cilley (C. C. A.) 50 F. 337.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F.2d 21, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-v-edmunds-ca5-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack