Case ID: mich_46/html/0189-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph P. Le Boux et al. relators v. Bay Circuit Judge.
    
      Removal of ca/uses — Proceclit/re.
    Where removal papers have been filed to transfer a case from a State to a federal court, an order from the State court is unnecessary to complete the transfer, and if entered is nugatory.
    A party who desires that a cause removed to a federal court should proceed in the State court, should move the federal court to remand it, and if his motion is denied he has a remedy by Act of. Congress whereby his rights can be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    
      Mandamus to vacate order' of removal. Tlie respondent made an order staying tlie further prosecution in the circuit court of a suit brought by relators against Salmon S. Mathews and others, and removing the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Michigan. Delators ask for a mandanvios to vacate the order.
    Submitted and denied June 8.
    
      Griffin, Dickinson, Thurber & Hosmer for the motion.
   Per Curiam.

No order of the circuit court is necessary to complete the transfer of a cause from that court to the courts of the United States after the necessary papers for ' the removal have been filed, and where such an order has been made in the circuit court, the vacating thereof would have no effect upon the cause. Where a cause has been removed -to the United States court, and the party opposed to such removal wishes to have the cause proceed in the State court, he should make a motion in the United States court to have the cause remanded, and if the motion is denied he has a remedy given him by Act of Congress whereby the question can be passed upon by the Supreme Court of tlie United States. And as the question involves the proper construction of an act of congress it is eminently proper that the remedy thus provided should be pursued and not resort to the State court.