Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols
Stevens’s Administrator v. Nichols
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.