Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

117 U.S. 197

6 S. Ct. 669

29 L. Ed. 888

Akers v. Akers

Supreme Court of the United States

Submitted March 1, 1886.

Decided March 8, 1886.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1886-03-08

This cause was commenced in a State court- of Tennessee in March, 1882. In the following October an order for its removal into the Circuit Court of the United States, founded on a petition of defendant’s, which averred, among other things, “ that the controversy in said suit is between citizens of different States, and that the petitioner is a citizen of the State of Kentucky,” was made. .

2 counsel of record

Relies on Gibson v. Bruce

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-03-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2005 · most notably St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co (1938), Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger (1978)

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

1101886189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.

¶2A suit cannot be removed-from a State court under the act oí March 3, 1875, unless the requisite citizenship for removal existed when the suit was begun, as well as when the application for removal was made.

¶3Gibson v. JSruoe, 108 U. S. 561 affirmed and applied.

¶4This cause was commenced in a State court- of Tennessee in March, 1882. In the following October an order for its re*198moval into the Circuit Court of the United States, founded on a petition of defendant’s, which averred, among other things, “ that the controversy in said suit is between citizens of different States, and that the petitioner is a citizen of the State of Kentucky,” was made. . The Circuit Court on the 25th October, 1882, made the following order and judgment.

¶5“ The petition for the removal of this case from the State court to this court failing to aver that the parties were citizens of different States at the commencement of this suit, and it further’appearing from th.e-admission of said parties that both plaintiff and defendant were citizens of Tennessee at the time said suit vsfas commenced, the court entertains the opinion that it is without jurisdiction, and doth thereupon order and adjudge that the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court of Davidson County, the tribunal from which it came; and it is further considered by the court that the plaintiff have and recover of the defendant his costs incurred in this court, for which execution is awarded; to which judgment of the court ’ the defendant then and there excepted.”

¶6The defendant sued out this writ of error to review that judgment. On motion of the defendant in error the cause was advanced under Rule 32, and was then submitted.

¶7Mr. 8. Watson for defendant in error.

¶8No appearance for plaintiff,in error.

¶9Me. Chief Justiob Waite

¶10delivered the opinion of the court.

¶11The order remanding this cause is affirmed on the authority of Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U. S. 561, it being admitted that both the plaintiff and the defendant were citizens of Tennessee at the time the suit was brought. Affirmed.

/117/us/197 · .json · Public domain