157 US 370 Carr v. Nichols
157 U.S. 370
15 S.Ct. 640
39 L.Ed. 736
April 1, 1895.
Geo. A. Madill, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. P. B. Jackson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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; U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; Matheson's Adm'r v. Grant's Adm'r, 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. Railway Co., 131 U. S. 240, 9 Sup. Ct. 692; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bender, 148 U. S. 255, 13 Sup. Ct. 591. The judgment is therefore affirmed.