Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE

REMOVAL OF CAUSES

FROM

STATE TO FEDERAL COURTS,

WITH A PRELIMINARY CHAPTER ON

JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE

UNITED STATES.

BY

ROBERT DESTY,
AUTHOR OF “PEDERAL PROCEDURE,” “FEDERAL CITATIONS,” “FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION," “AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW,ETC.

THIRD EDITION.
REVISED AND ENLARGED.

SAN FRANCISCO:
BANCROFT-WHITNEY CO.
LAW PUBLISHERS AND LAW BOOKSELLERS.

1893.

LIRRADV Ar ruir
LELAND STANruiíu wil. Unii ERSITY.

742699

COPYRIGHT, 1882,
BY SUMNER WHITNEY & Co.

COPYRIGHT, 1887,
By BANCROFT-WHITNEY Co.

COPYRIGHT, 1893,
BY BANCROFT-WHITNEY Co.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

In this edition there will be found not only notes of the Statutes and Decisions since 1887, but the results of a complete re-examination of the whole field and a careful notation of all the

cases.

JANUARY, 1893.

PREFACE.

It was originally intended to produce a work exclusively upon the subject of Removal of Causes, but that subject was found so intimately blended with the subject of jurisdiction of the circuit court, that it was found necessary to unite the two subjects, and the result has been the production of the present work. It seems that the Act of March 3d, 1875, had the effect of repealing the Act of 1866, but had not the same effect upon the Act of 1867, amendatory thereto. While the later act extended the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, it at the same time contracted the right of removal, as to time of application for removal, from “any time before the trial or final hearing of the suit,” as recited in the earlier act, to “before or at the term at which said cause could be first tried, and before the trial thereof,” as recited in the latter act. And as both acts were to be read together, they could not fail to be productive of serious question as to their judicial construction, as will be seen by the number of cases cited in this volume where the question of the time of application for removal of the cause was brought up. Many applications for removal were relied on under the Act of 1867, which were decided as taken too late under the Act of 1875, and the cause remanded for want of jurisdiction, and the question of the effect of the later act was variously determined in different districts, in accordance with the rules of the local statutes and practice as to what constituted “before or at the term at which said cause could be first tried, and before the trial thereof,” creating a series of decisions in apparent contradiction with each other, but in reality not inharmonious.

« PreviousContinue »