Brinkerhoff v. Morris Canal & Banking Co.

U.S. Circuit Court

Brinkerhoff v. Morris Canal & Banking Co.

18 F. 97, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373

DecidedOctober 22, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F. 97 (Brinkerhoff v. Morris Canal & Banking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinkerhoff v. Morris Canal & Banking Co., 18 F. 97, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373 (uscirct 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Nixon, J.

The above case was removed into this court from the supreme court of the state of New Jersey. The plaintiff moves to remand the cause, on the ground that when the original suit was commenced both the plaintiff and the defendant corporation were residents of the state. At the time of the removal the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of New York, having been substituted in the place of the original plaintiff, who had departed this life pendente lite. The supreme court, in the recent case of Gibson v. Bruce, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873, seems to have settled the controverted question that the requirement of the old law, that the necessary citizenship should exist when the suit was brought, was not abolished or changed by the act of 1875.

This case, therefore, has been improperly removed, and must be remanded.

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

Nixon, J.

The above case was removed into this court from the supreme court of the state of New Jersey. The plaintiff moves to remand the cause, on the ground that when the original suit was commenced both the plaintiff and the defendant corporation were residents of the state. At the time of the removal the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of New York, having been substituted in the place of the original plaintiff, who had departed this life pendente lite. The supreme court, in the recent case of Gibson v. Bruce, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873, seems to have settled the controverted question that the requirement of the old law, that the necessary citizenship should exist when the suit was brought, was not abolished or changed by the act of 1875.

This case, therefore, has been improperly removed, and must be remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. 97, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinkerhoff-v-morris-canal-banking-co-uscirct-1883.