St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Burton

Supreme Court

St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Burton

111 U.S. 788, 4 S. Ct. 699, 28 L. Ed. 604, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1840

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 5, 1884

Docket1269

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 111 U.S. 788 (St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Burton, 111 U.S. 788, 4 S. Ct. 699, 28 L. Ed. 604, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1840 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The order remanding this case is affirmed. The act of March 3d, 1875, c. 137,-sec. 5, 18 Stat. 470, makes it the duty of the Circuit Court to remand a suit which has been removed from a State court when it satisfactorily appears that the “ suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said Circuit Court.” The exemplification of the record of the naturalization of Moses Burton, which was offered in evidence, did not require, to complete its authentication, the certificate of the clerk under the seal of his office that the judge of the court was duly commissioned and qualified. The certificates may be to some extent defective in form, but we think the record as a whole could properly be considered by the judge on the question of remanding the cause.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The order remanding this case is affirmed. The act of March 3d, 1875, c. 137,-sec. 5, 18 Stat. 470, makes it the duty of the Circuit Court to remand a suit which has been removed from a State court when it satisfactorily appears that the “ suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said Circuit Court.” The exemplification of the record of the naturalization of Moses Burton, which was offered in evidence, did not require, to complete its authentication, the certificate of the clerk under the seal of his office that the judge of the court was duly commissioned and qualified. The certificates may be to some extent defective in form, but we think the record as a whole could properly be considered by the judge on the question of remanding the cause.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 U.S. 788, 4 S. Ct. 699, 28 L. Ed. 604, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-minneapolis-manitoba-railway-co-v-burton-scotus-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack