Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

45 F. 433, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1768
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
DecidedMarch 3, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 F. 433 (Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 F. 433, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1768 (circtdmn 1891).

Opinion

Nelson, J.

This is a motion to remand made by the plaintiff. The correct practice is indicated by Judge Gresham in Shedd v. Fuller, 36 Fed. Rep. 609. The petition should be presented to the state court, and opportunity given that court to act. In this case the petition was presented to the clerk of the state court, and filed by him, and a certified copy immediately made and given the defendant. The court never had its attention called to the petition. This is not the proper practice indicated by the statute granting removals from the state court, or recognized by the United Htates supreme court.

Motion to remand granted.

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

Related

Higson v. . Insurance Co.
68 S.E. 920 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Higson v. North River Insurance
153 N.C. 35 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Monroe v. Williamson
81 F. 977 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 F. 433, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-chicago-st-p-m-o-ry-co-circtdmn-1891.