Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

157 U.S. 370

Docket No. 789.

Carr v. Nichols

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 1895.

Supreme Court of the United States

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1994

3 state decisions

Relies on Chirac · The United States v. Thomas Buford · John Murphy v. Angus Stewart Administrator of Alexander Grant

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 8–0 ·

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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.

¶1

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.

¶2

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.

/157/us/370 · .json · Public domain