The Daily state register. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1870-1872, 1871-11-25
REMOVAL OF CASES FROM THE
STATE COURTS.

StalG COOhlS.
The Supreme Court of Nevada has
rendered a decision inthe case of the
Meadow Valley Mining Company
VS.. Elliott Dodds etal., involving the
matter of the removal of cases from
the State Courts to the United States
Circuit Court. The act of Congress
of 1867 provides for the removal of
cases from the State Courts to the
United States Circuit Court when
there is Il controversy between citi-
zens of different States, and the
matter in dispute exceeds $500, ex-
elusive OF costs, on the application
of such citizen of another State,
whether plaintiff or defendant. The
Supreme Court holds the act Con
stituiional. Referring to this act
and its construction, the Court says:
Nor is the time when. nor the man
uer in which jurisdiction of such cases
shall be assumed, in IN way IRE
>crihci. To 1--WE the power full and
complete effect, therefore. it must be
held that Congress may Il jurIS-
dIctlOn of the eases enumerated at any
stage. by Ve>ting it absolutely and eN-
ciu>IveIv in the Federal Courts. If
this power he vested in the Federal
Government nv the Constitution,
without Limitation or restriction. hV
what process of reasoning IAN il he
maintained that il cannot assume such
cpntrO! after the parties have submit
tel L. the jurisdiction of the State
Courts? II the power he unrestricted.
then II may be exercised at ANY time
While it can ne said that a controversy
exists between the parties. There is
no warrant III the grant of power for
restricting lis exercise TO cases where
the person invoking The Federal an
thOrItV has not submitted to The iuris
diciInu OF the STATE Courts. To 81 hold
would be 10 ci~rcuIn>cribe the power
and limit its scope. The power. H.
conferred, authorizes the assumption
of jurisdiction of all cases between
citizens Of different States. aud ~ the
greater includes the less. il iil>lltIe-
the assumption OF jurisdiction of such
controversies, although the parties
may nave submitted TO the iuri>dic-
ton OF a Stale Court. for nutwIh>Iamd
inG that fact. 1t i Sill a controversy
between citizens of different STATES,
and continues - ii least until the mat
ter is determined by 4 judgment.
The Court holds tha5 the decision
of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
hat the transfer cannot be made
after the institution of the suit in
the State Court, TO be illogical and
incorrect. The facts necessary to
be stated by the party making the
application fora transfer are alluded
to in the following extract
It will he observed that the statute
only requires the person moving To
have tht ease transferred. to make and
file an affidavit stating that .'he has
reason to, and does believe. that from
prejudice or local influence, he will
not be able to obtain Justice i'll such
STATE Court" The statute specifies
what the affidavit shall contain. 1t
does not require the existence OF local
prejudice, or the fact that Justice can
not be obtainedi in consequence thereof,
?" be shown OF proven to the salts
.@g'ion OF the Court to whom the APP
pill. m i made. IF the Act required
that ls.-- % be shown. then in cunfor-
nifty I" d, iNions upon like statutes,
it would be necessary to state the facts
upon which the applicant founded his
be. let. But here the statute only re
quire> the person making the affidavit
70 state the fact. There is an obvious
and material distinction between
showing a fact and stating it. In the
one case satisfactory proof may be re-
quired, in the other the mere recital
OF the fact is sufficient. The affidavit
in this case does state the fact, that
from local prejudice che afiiant cannot
obtain Justice. and thus it comes
strictly within the letter of the statute.
The Court below erred in denying
the notion Its Judgment mus
therefore he reversed.
The total product of gold and silver
80