Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

140 U.S. 117

Birdseye v. Schaeffer

Supreme Court of the United States

Submitted April 20, 1891.

Decided April 27, 1891.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1891-04-27

2 counsel of record

Relies on Gurnee v. Patrick County · Terry v. Sharon · Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Thouron

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co (1898), Bracewell v. Kelley (2006)

35 federal appellate · 5 district ·

140189119001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

¶2It is again decided that an order remanding a cause from a Circuit Court' of the United States to the state court from which it was removed, is not a final judgment or decree · Case Law">final judgment or decree which this court has jurisdiction to review.

¶3This cause was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas prior to the passage' of the act of March 3, 1887, providing that no appeal or writ of error from the decision of the Circuit Court remanding a .cause to a state court from which it had been removed, should be allowed. The order remanding the cause to the state court *118from which it had been removed was made subsequent to that act, but prior to' the act of February 25, 1889; the writ of error was allowed on the 7th of June, a.d. 1889, subsequent to the act of February 25, 1889.

¶4A motion was made to dismiss the writ on the grounds: (1) That there was no jurisdiction to issue the same and no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the record filed herein; (2) Because the judgment of the Circuit Court complained of, remanding the cause to the District Court of Nueces County, Texas, from which it had been removed for trial, was not a final judgment and cannot be reviewed by this court.

¶5Mr. Philip B. Thompson and Mr. J. M. Vale for the'motion.

¶6Mr. Bethel Coopwood and Mr.. John Hancock opposing.

/140/us/117 · .json · Public domain