Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols

Supreme Court

Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols

157 U.S. 370, 15 S. Ct. 640, 39 L. Ed. 736, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2211

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 1, 1895

Docket789

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 157 U.S. 370 (Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols) 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

Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols, 157 U.S. 370, 15 S. Ct. 640, 39 L. Ed. 736, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2211 (1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

. The Supreme Court of the State held that the refusal of the trial court to permit the defendant to amend his petition for removal was proper. Amendments of pleadings or other proceedings are as a rule matters of discretion with the trial court, and a writ of error will not lie to review its action in respect thereto. Walden v. Craig, 9 Wheat. 576; Chirac v. Reinicker, 11 Wheat. 280; United States v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; Matheson's Administrators v. Grant's Administrator, 2 How. 263.

The denial by a state court of an application to amend a petition for removal is therefore not the denial of any right secured by the Constitution of the United States. Crehore v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway, 131 U. S. 210; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bender, 148 U. S. 255. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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