Green v. Custard
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the western district of Texas.
The facts and history of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Frederick P. Stanton for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for the defendant.
Upon the principal point involved in the case, Mr. Stanton said:
The court below properly acquired jurisdiction of the case as made by the original petition, which alleged that Custard was a citizen of Texas, and Green a citizen of Massachusetts.
Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 12.
But it had no authority to remand the case to the State court; the only alternative was, to dismiss it altogether.
The right to have his case tried in the Federal court, in a proper case for removal, is an absolute legal right in the party so removing it.
Ward v. Arredondo, Paine's C. C. R., 410.
Beardsley v. Torre, 4 Wash., 286.
Gibson v. Johnson, Peters C. C. R., 44.
Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet., 97.
It is only causes improperly removed which will be remanded.
Laws U.S.C.ourts, 147, which quotes Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421.
Wright v. Wells, 1 Pet. C. C. R., 220, is an authority to show that a party, after a removal of the cause, cannot amend so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Federal court. And the rule is just; for otherwise a party would only have to exercise his ingenuity to suggest matters of amendment, either true or false, in order to send the case back to the State court. Of these amendments, the Federal court, having no jurisdiction, could not inquire at all.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
Notes edit
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse