TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bradley v. Ohio River & Charleston Railroad

J. F. Bradley, Administrator of Sarah J. Kenipe v. Ohio River and Charleston Railroad Company.

Bradley v. Ohio River & Charleston R.R., 26 S.E. 169 (N.C. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 5, 1896
Judges
MoNtgomeey
Citations
26 S.E. 169119 N.C. 744
Headnotes
Removal of Causes — Petition for Removal — Diverse Citizenship Must Exist at Commencement of Action. Where neither the petition for the removal of a canse from a State to a Federal Court on the ground of diverse citizenship nor any other part of the record shows the diverse citizenship at the commencement of the action, the Federal Court is without jurisdiction, and its order of removal based on such defective petition is a nullity.
Summary
Civil actioN, pending in the Superior Court of McDowell County. At May, 1896, Special Term, before Brown, J'., the defendant, the Ohio & Charleston Railway Company, presented certain orders and proceedings of the Circuit Court of the United States, undertaking to remove this cause to the said Circuit Court, upon the grounds of local prejudice, and that said defendant was a corporation and citizen of another State. The defendant thereupon moved this Court that it proceed no further in said cause as to said defendant. His Honor refused the motion, and the said defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — MoNtgomeey

MoNtgomeey, J.;

There were many questions raised in the record, all of which were discussed at length in the argument here. It is unnecessary, however, for us to consider but a single one of them. Both the affidavit for the removal of the cause from the State court to the United *745 States Circuit Court and the order of his Honor Judge DiCic of the latter court, directing its removal, are fatally defective in their most material and necessary features. The affidavit shows that the petitioner (the defendant in the action) was, at the time the affidavit was made, a resident and citizen of the State of South Carolina, and that the plaintiff was at that time a resident and citizen of the State of North Carolina, and the order of removal only recites the citizenship of the parties as it was set out in the petition. It does not appear affirmatively, either in the petition or in the order of removal or anywhere else in the record, that the diverse citizenship of the parties existed also at the time of the commencement of the action. And for that reason the order is a nullity, the Circuit Court not having jurisdiction to make the order on the affidavit. The case of Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S., 232 , is exactly in point and decisive of this matter. The- Supreme Court said in that case : “ The petition for removal does not allege the citizenship of the parties except at the date when it was filed, and it is not shown elsewhere in the record that Stevens & Myrick were at the commencement of the action citizens of a State other than the one of which the plaintiff was at that time a citizen. The Court therefore cannot consider the merits of the case.’ The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to that Court with directions to send it back to the State court.”

No Error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1896: 11898: 11900: 218962026peak 1900 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Calvert v. Southern Ry. Co.36 S.E. 750 (S.C. 1900) · Dissent
  2. Howard v. Southern Railway Co.29 S.E. 778 (N.C. 1898)
  3. Debnam v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.65 L.R.A. 915 (N.C. 1900)
  4. Bradley v. Ohio R. & C. Ry. Co.78 F. 387 (1896)

Most recent

  1. Calvert v. Southern Ry. Co.36 S.E. 750 (S.C. 1900) · Dissent
  2. Debnam v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.65 L.R.A. 915 (N.C. 1900)
  3. Howard v. Southern Railway Co.29 S.E. 778 (N.C. 1898)
  4. Bradley v. Ohio R. & C. Ry. Co.78 F. 387 (1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Buxton v. Traver, 130 U.S. 232 (1889) 41

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list