Saiek v. Pennsylvania R.

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

Saiek v. Pennsylvania R.

193 F. 303, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5421

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 F. 303 (Saiek v. Pennsylvania R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saiek v. Pennsylvania R., 193 F. 303, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5421 (circtedny 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The motion to remand must be granted. Repeal by implication must result, where no other intent can be inferred which will harmonize with the prior statute. In this case jurisdiction is given the state courts by Act April 5, 1910, c. 143, 36 Stat. 291, amending Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65. By the amendment of April 5, 1910, original jurisdiction is given to the Circuit Courts of more districts than under prior existing law, and removal of all suits under this law to the United'States court — i. e., “the court of the proper district” — -is prohibited.

This is plain language and must be respected. Sections 1 and 2, c. 137, Act March 3, 1875, are modified or limited thereby.

Note. — Action brought in New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, charging negligence wilhin the provisions of Employer’s Liability Act April 22, 3908. as amended by Act April 5, 1910. Removed to the United States court upon November 8, 3913. Motion to remand, on ground" iliat removal of such action was prohibited by the above statute. Opposed upon the theory that the removal act of March 3, 1875, was not repealed by the act of April 5, 1930, with respect to causes removable for other reasons than that they arose under the provisions of a law of the United States; the particular point as to the present case being that removal upon grounds of diversity of citizenship, in a case involving more than ¡¡>2,000, was still possible under the general statute of 1875.

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

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The motion to remand must be granted. Repeal by implication must result, where no other intent can be inferred which will harmonize with the prior statute. In this case jurisdiction is given the state courts by Act April 5, 1910, c. 143, 36 Stat. 291, amending Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65. By the amendment of April 5, 1910, original jurisdiction is given to the Circuit Courts of more districts than under prior existing law, and removal of all suits under this law to the United'States court — i. e., “the court of the proper district” — -is prohibited.

This is plain language and must be respected. Sections 1 and 2, c. 137, Act March 3, 1875, are modified or limited thereby.

Note. — Action brought in New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, charging negligence wilhin the provisions of Employer’s Liability Act April 22, 3908. as amended by Act April 5, 1910. Removed to the United States court upon November 8, 3913. Motion to remand, on ground" iliat removal of such action was prohibited by the above statute. Opposed upon the theory that the removal act of March 3, 1875, was not repealed by the act of April 5, 1930, with respect to causes removable for other reasons than that they arose under the provisions of a law of the United States; the particular point as to the present case being that removal upon grounds of diversity of citizenship, in a case involving more than ¡¡>2,000, was still possible under the general statute of 1875.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 F. 303, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saiek-v-pennsylvania-r-circtedny-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack