Heirs of Ludlow v. Heirs of Kidd
This text of 3 Ohio 48 (Heirs of Ludlow v. Heirs of Kidd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The charter of the bank contains no provision authorizing the removal of a cause, upon the application of the bank, from a state to a circuit court. Section 12 of the judicial act of 1789, extends this privilege to parties who are particularly enumerated. The bank is not one of them, and can not claim what the law does not provide for it.
Besides, the bank is one of many defendants. It has been the settled construction of section 12 of the law of Congress of 1789, that the privileged defendant could not extend his privilege to his co-defendant. In this case, there is no pretense that any of the other defendants are entitled to litigate the matter in dispute, in the federal court. The motion must be overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Ohio 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heirs-of-ludlow-v-heirs-of-kidd-ohio-1827.