Plant v. Harrison

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Plant v. Harrison

101 F. 307, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5161

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 101 F. 307 (Plant v. Harrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plant v. Harrison, 101 F. 307, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5161 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Under the Acts of 1887 and 1888 there can he no removal where the controversy is not one of which the circuit court would have original jurisdiction. The suit or action now under consideration seeks, among' other things, the establishment of a certain document as a will. Whether this court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, and administer so much of the relief prayed for, seems to be a question not altogether free from doubt upon the authorities. Where doubt exists, the practice in this district is to remand. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Hoffman House (Jan. 16, 1894, unreported), where the opinion of Judge Caldwell in Fitzgerald v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 45 Fed. 812, was concurred in and followed. The motion to remand is granted.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Under the Acts of 1887 and 1888 there can he no removal where the controversy is not one of which the circuit court would have original jurisdiction. The suit or action now under consideration seeks, among' other things, the establishment of a certain document as a will. Whether this court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, and administer so much of the relief prayed for, seems to be a question not altogether free from doubt upon the authorities. Where doubt exists, the practice in this district is to remand. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Hoffman House (Jan. 16, 1894, unreported), where the opinion of Judge Caldwell in Fitzgerald v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 45 Fed. 812, was concurred in and followed. The motion to remand is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. 307, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plant-v-harrison-circtsdny-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack