TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols

Stevens’s Administrator v. Nichols

Stevens's Adm'r v. Nichols, 157 U.S. 370 (1895)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 1, 1895
Docket
No. 789
Judges
Brewer
Citations
157 U.S. 37015 S. Ct. 64039 L. Ed. 7361895 U.S. LEXIS 2211
Syllabus
The denial by a state court of an application to amend a petition for the removal of the cause to a Federal court is not the denial of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States.
Summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. Motion to dismiss or affirm. In January, 1881, the defendant in error as plaintiff commenced a proceeding in the Circuit Court of Pettis County, Missouri, to procure the issue of executions against Robert S. Stevens and another as stockholders in the Texas & Atlantic Refrigerator Car Company, against which he had previously recovered a judgment. This proceeding was based upon section 736, Rev. Stats. Missouri, 1879 (now section 2517, Rev. Stats. 1889). The proceeding was removed by the defendants to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. In that court upon proper pleadings a trial was had resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against each defendant for a separate amount. Stevens brought the judgment against him to this court by writ of error, but on examination it was found that the petition for removal was defective, in that it failed to allege the existence of diverse citizenship at the time of the commencement of the proceeding as well as at the time of the application for the removal. The case was, therefore, sent báck to the United States Circuit- Court, with instructions to remand it to the state court. Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. 230. This order was carried into effect by the United States Circuit Court. In the state court thereafter an application was made for leave to amend the petition for the removal so as to include an allegation of diverse citizenship at the time of the commencement of the proceeding. This application was denied. Subsequently a trial was had and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Stevens, which judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of the State. Whereupon defendant Stevens sued out this writ of error.

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

Opinion — Brewer

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.

1899: 11901: 11909: 11910: 11925: 21994: 118992026peak 1925 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McKemy v. Supreme Lodge A. O. U. W.180 F. 961 (6th Cir. 1910)
  2. State ex rel. Missouri-Nebraska Express, Inc. v. Jackson876 S.W.2d 730 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)
  3. Pizer v. Hunt148 N.E. 801 (Mass. 1925)
  4. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railway Co. v. Adams180 U.S. 1 (1901)
  5. Adams v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad77 Miss. 194 (1899) · Dissent
  6. Pizer v. Hunt146 N.E. 7 (Mass. 1925)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Missouri-Nebraska Express, Inc. v. Jackson876 S.W.2d 730 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)
  2. Pizer v. Hunt148 N.E. 801 (Mass. 1925)
  3. Pizer v. Hunt146 N.E. 7 (Mass. 1925)
  4. McKemy v. Supreme Lodge A. O. U. W.180 F. 961 (6th Cir. 1910)
  5. George W. Thomas, in Error v. South Side Elevated Railway Company214 U.S. 496 (1909)
  6. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railway Co. v. Adams180 U.S. 1 (1901)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Chirac v. Reinicker, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 280 (1826) 142
United States v. Buford, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 12 (1830) 61
Matheson's Admin. v. Grant's Admin., 43 U.S. (2 How.) 263 (1844) 53
New Orleans v. Gaines's Adm'r, 131 U.S. 191 (1889) 31
Walden v. Craig, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 576 (1824) 30
Pa. Co. v. Bender, 148 U.S. 255 (1893) 16

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