TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kimball v. Evans

Kimball v. Evans, 93 U.S. 320 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 11, 1876
Docket
No. 4
Judges
Waite
Citations
93 U.S. 32023 L. Ed. 9203 Otto 3201876 U.S. LEXIS 1388
Cited by 3
Headnotes
Where a petition for the removal of a suit filed under the act of March 2,1867 (14 Stat. 558), was, in accordance witli the practice of the State, reserved for the decision of the Supreme Court, and the latter dismissed the petition, and remanded the cause to the inferior court for further proceedings, according to law, — Held, that this court has no jurisdiction.
Summary
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. Pending á suit in the District Court of Stark County, Ohio, a petition was filed, under the act of March 2,1867 (14 Stat. 558), for its removal to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District in that State. This petition presenting for consideration, in the opinion of the District Court, difficult and important questions, the cause was reserved, in accordance with the practice in Ohio, to the Supreme Court “ for its decision on said petition for the removal of ¿he cause to the Circuit Court.” The Supreme Court, after hearing, dismissed the petition and remanded the cause to the District Court “ for further proceedings according to law.” To reverse this judgment the present writ of error was brought.

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

Opinion — Waite

*321 Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

It is clear we have no jurisdiction in this cause. The judgment of the Supreme Court is not the final judgment in the suit. It disposed finally of one of the questions involved in the suit, but not of the suit itself. The suit is still pending in the District Court, and it is not impossible that the parties now complaining may be satisfied with the judgment which they may in the end be able to secure in the State courts. If not, after a final judgment has in fact been rendered by the highest court of the State in which a decision in the suit can be had, the case may be again brought here for a determination of the questions arising upon the petition for removal. But in the present condition of the record the writ must be Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 11887–1888: 11899–1900: 118832026peak 1883 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fisher v. Perkins122 U.S. 522 (1887)
  2. White Adm'r v. Holt20 W. Va. 792 (1883)
  3. Commercial National Bank v. Consumers' Brewing Co.16 App. D.C. 186 (D.C. Cir. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Commercial National Bank v. Consumers' Brewing Co.16 App. D.C. 186 (D.C. Cir. 1900)
  2. Fisher v. Perkins122 U.S. 522 (1887)
  3. White Adm'r v. Holt20 W. Va. 792 (1883)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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