Sheldrick v. Cockcroft

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Sheldrick v. Cockcroft

27 F. 579, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedMay 24, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. 579 (Sheldrick v. Cockcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheldrick v. Cockcroft, 27 F. 579, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133 (circtdct 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Shipman, J.

These are motions to remand to the state court. The two cases were removed under the provisions of the second and third sections of the act of March 3, 1875. Section 3 requires that the removing party shall make and file in the state court, with his petition, a bond, with surety, for entering, on the specified day, a copy of the record in the circuit court, “and for paying all costs that may be awarded by the circuit court if the said court shall hold that such suit was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto.” Neither of the bonds in these cases contained any provision in regard to costs, but were in accordance with the requirements of section 639 of the Revised Statutes. “The filing of the bond, conditioned as required by the act of 1875, is a condition precedent to the removal of the cause to the federal courts.” If the statutory requirements were not complied with, the cases were not properly removed, this court has no further jurisdiction, and the motions to remand must be granted. Torrey v. Grant Locomotive Works, 14 Blatchf. 269; McLean v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 17 Blatchf. 363; Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U. S. 606.

The motions are granted, with costs in one only of the cases.

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

Shipman, J.

These are motions to remand to the state court. The two cases were removed under the provisions of the second and third sections of the act of March 3, 1875. Section 3 requires that the removing party shall make and file in the state court, with his petition, a bond, with surety, for entering, on the specified day, a copy of the record in the circuit court, “and for paying all costs that may be awarded by the circuit court if the said court shall hold that such suit was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto.” Neither of the bonds in these cases contained any provision in regard to costs, but were in accordance with the requirements of section 639 of the Revised Statutes. “The filing of the bond, conditioned as required by the act of 1875, is a condition precedent to the removal of the cause to the federal courts.” If the statutory requirements were not complied with, the cases were not properly removed, this court has no further jurisdiction, and the motions to remand must be granted. Torrey v. Grant Locomotive Works, 14 Blatchf. 269; McLean v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 17 Blatchf. 363; Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U. S. 606.

The motions are granted, with costs in one only of the cases.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. 579, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheldrick-v-cockcroft-circtdct-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack