Hutcheson v. Bigbee

U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Hutcheson v. Bigbee

56 F. 329, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia

DecidedMarch 30, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 F. 329 (Hutcheson v. Bigbee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hutcheson v. Bigbee, 56 F. 329, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676 (circtndga 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

NEWMAN, District Judge.

This is a motion to remand. The motion is made on two grounds: First, that the defendant is a citizen of Georgia, and that the removal is improper, based on the ground that he is not a citizen of the state; second, that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $2,000. On the first ground, without considering the second, there would be, to take the most favorable view of it for the defendant, very grave doubt as to the question of his citizenship. The jurisdiction of the court to justify removal and retention after removal, when motion to remand is made, should be clear. Where the jurisdiction is doubtful, the case should be remanded. Consequently this case should be remanded to the superior court of Lumpkin county, and it is so ordered. Fitzgerald v. Railway Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 812; Kessinger v. Vannatta, 27 Fed. Rep. 890.

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

NEWMAN, District Judge.

This is a motion to remand. The motion is made on two grounds: First, that the defendant is a citizen of Georgia, and that the removal is improper, based on the ground that he is not a citizen of the state; second, that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $2,000. On the first ground, without considering the second, there would be, to take the most favorable view of it for the defendant, very grave doubt as to the question of his citizenship. The jurisdiction of the court to justify removal and retention after removal, when motion to remand is made, should be clear. Where the jurisdiction is doubtful, the case should be remanded. Consequently this case should be remanded to the superior court of Lumpkin county, and it is so ordered. Fitzgerald v. Railway Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 812; Kessinger v. Vannatta, 27 Fed. Rep. 890.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. 329, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutcheson-v-bigbee-circtndga-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack