Case ID: la-ann_33/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fenner, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6840.
    Mrs. Eliza C. Johnson vs. The New Orleans National Banking Association et al.
    An appeal lies to this Court from an order of a State Court ^removing a cause to the Circuit Court of the United States.
    A suit involving a Federal question, within the provisions of Sec. 2 of the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1875, is removable "by the State Court to the Circuit Court of the United States*
    
      APPEAL from the Sixth Judicial District Court for the parish of Ot leans. Bightor, J.
    
      Singleton & Browne for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    
      Bouse & Grant for Defendants and Appellees:
    The plaintiff sues to set aside a sale made by a special commissioner under a decree of tbe United States Circuit Court for tbe District of Louisiana, for tbe sale of mortgaged property, for alleged informalities. .
    Tbe defendants petitioned for tbe removal of the caseto tbe said Circuit Court, on tbe ground that tbe suit involved a Federal question, within tbe provisions of Sec. 2, of the Act of Congress, approved March 3,1875.
    Tbe plaintiff appeals from tbe order of tbe late Sixth District Court removing tbe cause.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court removing the cause to the U. S. Circuit Court.

Appellee objects that an appeal does not lie from such order; and as that objection goes to our jurisdiction we must decide it. An able opinion of Judge Woods, sitting as U. S. Circuit Judge, is quoted in support of the objection. The right of appeal, in such case, is too firmly established in the jurisprudence of this Court to be departed from until reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

28 An. 29; 29 An. 372; 30 An. 474; 31 An. 41, 363; 32 An. 405. See, also, 106 Mass. 180; 25 Wis. 424; 51 Ill. 439.

On the merits, however, the ease is clearly with the appellees.

The controversy is as to the regularity and validity of a decree and proceedings thereunder of a Federal Court, and of defendant’s title under a sale made in pursuance thereof. The decree and proceedings attacked were in an equity cause, the modes of procedure in which are regulated by the laws of the United States, and their regularity and validity tested thereby. U. S. Rev. St. 913-914.

The correct decision of the case depends upon'the “laws of the United States” regulating the subject-matter, and the case, therefore, arises under said laws and is removable under the second section of the Act of March 3d, 1875.

Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379.

Asborn vs. Bank, 9 Wheat. 822.

Hébert vs. Lefenere 31 An. 363.

No errors in the proceedings for removal are assigned or pointed out by brief, and we discover none.

The judgment appeal from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.