Dunham v. Baird

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Dunham v. Baird

8 F. Cas. 39, 2 W.N.C. 52

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketCase No. 4,147

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. Cas. 39 (Dunham v. Baird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunham v. Baird, 8 F. Cas. 39, 2 W.N.C. 52 (circtedpa 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

McICBNNAN, Circuit Judge.

The petition was filed in time, and no action of the state court was required by the act of the 3d March, 1S7ÍÍ, upon either petition or bond; it was for the United States court to determine the sufficiency of the latter, and upon a careful perusal of the judiciary act of the 3d March, 1875, the court is of opinion that its provisions wore intended to be co-extensive with the powers conferred upon the judiciary in section 2, subsection 1, article 3, of the constitution of the United States. The petition for removal was not filed too late in the state court as it was presented in the term succeeding that in which the act was passed. [Motion denied.]²

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

McICBNNAN, Circuit Judge.

The petition was filed in time, and no action of the state court was required by the act of the 3d March, 1S7ÍÍ, upon either petition or bond; it was for the United States court to determine the sufficiency of the latter, and upon a careful perusal of the judiciary act of the 3d March, 1875, the court is of opinion that its provisions wore intended to be co-extensive with the powers conferred upon the judiciary in section 2, subsection 1, article 3, of the constitution of the United States. The petition for removal was not filed too late in the state court as it was presented in the term succeeding that in which the act was passed. [Motion denied.]²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Cas. 39, 2 W.N.C. 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-baird-circtedpa-1875.