TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Juillard v. Barr

Juillard v. Barr, 177 F. 921 (2d Cir. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 10, 1910
Docket
No. 125
Judges
Coxe, Eacombe, Ward
Citations
177 F. 921101 C.C.A. 2011910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4435
Disposition
Reversed, with directions.
Cited by 2
Headnotes
1. Removal of Causes (§ 45*) — Action by Nonresident — Court to Which Cause was Removable. Where plaintiff, a citizen of Pennsylvania, brought suit on contract in the Supreme Court of New York against citizens of that state, it was not removable to the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in New York, under Removal Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 2, 18 Stat. 470, amended by Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, 24 Stat. 552 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 509), providing that a suit pending in a state court, of which the Circuit Court is given jurisdiction, may be removed by the “defendant” therein, being a “nonresident” of that stale. |Kd. Note.--For other cases, see Removal of Causes, Cent. Dig. § 89; Dec. Dig. § 45.*] 2. Removal of Causes (§ 111*) — Erroneous Removal — Jurisdiction Acquired. Where a case was erroneously removed from a state to a federal court, the federal court, acquired no jurisdiction, and a judgment therein would be .reversed on a writ of error, and the cause remanded, with directions to remand the cause; to the state court. I Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Removal of Causes, Cent. Dig. § 239; 'Dec. Dig. § 111.*]
Summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action by Augustus D. Juillard and others against Daniel M. Barr, doing business as the Barr Manufacturing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ward

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, a citizen of Pennsylvania, brought this suit on contract in the Supreme Court of the state of New York against the defendants, citizens of that state. 'They removed the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States where it was tried and a judgment entered for the plaintiff which is before us on writ of error. Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 2, 18 Stat. 470 , as amended by Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552 (U. S- Comp. St. 1901, p. 509), provides that a civil suit pending in a state court of which the Circuit Court is given jurisdiction by section 1, may lie removed by the defendant or defendants therein being “nonresidents of that state.” Section 5 of the same act makes it the duty of the Circuit Court to proceed no further when it shall appear that such suit does not involve a controversy within its jurisdiction. As the ]>etition for removal states that the defendants are all residents of the state of New York, they were not entitled to remove and we are without jurisdiction. Martin v. *922 Snyder, 148 U. S. 663 , 13 Sup. Ct. 706, 37 L. Ed. 602 ; Ereeman v. Butler (C. C.) 39 Fed. 1 .

The judgment is.reversed and the Circuit Court directed to enter an order remanding the cause to the state court; costs of the Circuit Court and of this court to be paid by the defendants.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →
1924: 11952: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co.2 F.2d 435 (6th Cir. 1924)
  2. Monroe v. United Carbon Co.196 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1952)

Most recent

  1. Monroe v. United Carbon Co.196 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1952)
  2. Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co.2 F.2d 435 (6th Cir. 1924)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Martin v. Snyder, 148 U.S. 663 (1893) 50
Freeman v. Butler, 39 F. 1 (1889) 18

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