Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 U.S. 663

37 L. Ed. 602

Docket No. 131.

Martin v. Snyder

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued and submitted March 9, 10, 1893.

Decided April 10, 1893.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1893-04-10

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF' THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ * * * The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of complainants, and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the circuit court, with directions * * to remand the case to the state court. Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 527, 533 [ 12 S.Ct. 726 , 36 L.Ed. 528 ].” (emphasis supplied).”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Smith v. Voss Oil Co., Kane v. Reichart Furniture Co.

“This was a bill of complaint filed by Samuel F. Engs, George Engs, and Henry Snyder, Jr. of the city, county, and state of New York, against Morris T. Martin and Carrie E. Martin, in the circuit court of Lake county in the state of Illinois, on the 27th of October, 1887. November 7, 1887, the defendants preferred a petition for the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court within and for the northern district of Illinois on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the case was transferred accordingly. The petition stated “that the controversy in said suit is between citizens of different states, and that the petitioners were at the time of the commencement of this suit, and still are, citizens of the state of Illinois, and that all the plaintiffs were then, and still are citizens of the state of New York.” Under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 552, chap. 373,) it is the defendant or defendants who are nonresidents of the state in which the action is pending who may remove the same into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of the complainants, and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the circuit court, with directions to render a judgment against them for costs in that court, and to remand the case to the state cour”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 486 F. Supp. 1012 - Young & Simon, Inc. v. Bernstein

Relies on Torrence v. Shedd · Board of Education of City of Atchison Kansas v. De Kay

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 8–0 · Decided 1893-04-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn (1951), Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank (1894)

28 federal appellate · 18 district · 15 state decisions

23018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 →

¶1APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF' THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

¶2A defendant residing -within a State in which an action is commenced in a court of the State, is not entitled, under the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, c. 373, to have the suit removed to the Circuit Court of the United States.

¶3The case is stated in the opinion.

¶4Mr. D. W. Voorhees and Mr. I. B. Hilles, (with whom ivas Mr. Reese II. Voorhees on the brief,) for appellants. Mr. G. W. Kretzinger also filed a brief for appellants.

¶5Mr. Allan C. Story for appellee.

¶6The Chief Justice :

¶7This was a bill of complaint filed by Samuel F. Engs, George Engs and Henry Snyder, Jr., of the city, county and State of New York, against Morris T. Martin and Carrie E. Martin, in the Circuit Court of Lake County in the State of Illinois, on the 27th of October, 1887.

¶8November 7, 1887, the defendants preferred a petition for the removal of the cause to. the United States Circuit Court Avithin and for the Northern District of Illinois on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the case was transferred accordingly.

¶9The petition stated “that the controversy in said suit is between citizens -of different States, and that the petitioners Avere at the time of the commencement of this suit and still are citizens of the State of Illinois, and that all the plaintiffs Avere then and still are citizens u£ the State of New York.”

¶10Under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 652, c. 373, it is the defendant or defendants aaJio are non-residents *664of the State in which the action is pending, who may remove the same into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district. The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of complainants and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to render a judgment against them for cos'ts in that court, and to remand the case to the state court. Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 533.

¶11Judgment reversed and cause remanded accordingly.

/148/us/663 · .json · Public domain