Pullman Co. v. Sutherlin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pullman Co. v. Sutherlin

101 S.E. 314, 24 Ga. App. 430, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 704

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 19, 1919

Docket10341

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 S.E. 314 (Pullman Co. v. Sutherlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pullman Co. v. Sutherlin, 101 S.E. 314, 24 Ga. App. 430, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

The petition in this ease alleges the residence of the plaintiff to be in Alabama and that of the defendant to be in Illinois. In the petition for removal this is not denied, nor is there any other reason given upon which the petition for removal is based. “A suit which, by reason of the non-residence of both parties, could not have been brought in the Federal court in the first instance, cannot be removed to that court from a State court, under the acts of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat, 522, c. 373), and August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. 433, c. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508), on the ground of diverse citizenship, at least' where the plaintiff resists such removal, even if the consent of both parties could confer jurisdiction.” Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449 (27 Sup. Ct. 150, 51 L. ed. 264). While it is true that in some of the later cases there is a tendency to modify the ruling made in the Wisner case, supra, this court is bound by that ruling until the United States Supreme Court expressly overrules it.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Smith, J.

The petition in this ease alleges the residence of the plaintiff to be in Alabama and that of the defendant to be in Illinois. In the petition for removal this is not denied, nor is there any other reason given upon which the petition for removal is based. “A suit which, by reason of the non-residence of both parties, could not have been brought in the Federal court in the first instance, cannot be removed to that court from a State court, under the acts of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat, 522, c. 373), and August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. 433, c. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508), on the ground of diverse citizenship, at least' where the plaintiff resists such removal, even if the consent of both parties could confer jurisdiction.” Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449 (27 Sup. Ct. 150, 51 L. ed. 264). While it is true that in some of the later cases there is a tendency to modify the ruling made in the Wisner case, supra, this court is bound by that ruling until the United States Supreme Court expressly overrules it.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 314, 24 Ga. App. 430, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullman-co-v-sutherlin-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack