New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-06-17
COURT RECORD.
FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1876.
Usited States Supreme Court.

The following decision was promulgated
on the fourteenth:
No. 104, Myra Clark Gaines vs.. Joseph
Euentes ct al.-In error to the Supreme
Court of the State of Louisiana -This is an
action in form to annul an alleged will of
Daniel Clark, the father of the appellant,
dated ON the thirteenth of July, 1919, and
to recall tho decree of the court by which
it was probated. 1t was brought in the
leans, which, under the laws of Louisiana,
is invested with jurisdiction over the estates
Of deceased persons, and Of appointments
necessary in the course of their sdministra-
ton. The petition Gets forth that on the
eighteenth of January, 1855, the ap-
pellant applied to that court for the
probate Of the alleged will; and that by
decree Of the Supreme Court of the State
the alleged will was recognized as the last
aud was ordered to bs recorded and
executed az such; that this decree Of pro-
bate was obtained er parte, aid by its terms
authorized any person at any time, VINO
might desire to do SO, to contest the will
and its probate in direct action, or as q
means OF defense by way of answer or ex-
ception, whenever the will should be set mp
as imminent Of title; that the appellant
subsequently commenced several suits
Court OF the United States to recover
sundry tracts Of land and properties OF
great value, situated in the parish
of Orleans, and elsewhere, in which
they are interested, setting up the alleged
will as prObated as imminent Of title.
and claiming under the same as instituted
heir of the testator, and that the petitioners
are unable to contest the validity OF the al
legged will SO long as the decree OF probate
,afs
proceed to set forth the grounds upon which
thew ask for revocation of the will and
the recalling of the decree of probate, these
being Substantially the faleity and INSULT
ciencv of the testimony upon which the
will was admitted to probate, and the status
of the appellant incapacitating her to In
herit or take by last will from the de-
cendent. A citation having been issued
upon the petition, and served upon the
appellant, she applied in proper form
with q tender of the necessary bond
Circuit Curt of the United States for
the district of Louisiana, under the twelfth
section of the judiciary act OF l7s9, on the
ground that che was citizen OF New YORK
and the petitioners were citizens OF Loulsl-
ana. The court denied the apIl catiOn, for
the alleged reason that, as the appellant
had made herself q party to the proceedings
in the court, relative to the settlement OF
Clark's succession by appearing for the pro
bate of the will, she could not now avoid
the Jurisdiction when the attempt was
made to set aside and annul the order OF
probate which she had obtained. The
court, however, went on to say in its opln-
ion that the federal court could not take
jurisdiction of y controversy having for its
object the annulmens Of q decree prooating
will.
The appellant then applied for removal
of the action, under the act OF March =,
1867, on the ground that from prejudice and
local influence she would not be able to
Obtain Justice in the State court, accom-
panying the application with the affidavit
and bond required by the statute. This
application was also denied, the court rest
ing it's decision on the alleged ground that
the federal tribunal could not take ]urls-
diction of the subject matter of the con-
troversy Other parties having interviewed,
the applications were renewed ana again
denied. An answer was then nled by
the appellant. denying generally the
allegations OF the petition except as 10
the probate of the will, and interpos-
ing q plea of prescription. subsequently
q further plea was filed to the effect
that the several matters alleged as to
the status of the appellant had been the
subject of judicial inquiry in the federal
courts, and had been there adjudged in her
favor, Upon hearing a decree was en-
tered annulling the will and revokiog the
probate. The Supreme Court of the State
having affirmed this decree, the case was
appealed to this court. In the view we take
OF the application of the appellant to re,
move the cause to the federal court, no
other question than The one raised upon
that application was open for our considera-
ton. If the application should have been
granted the subsequent proceedings were
without validity, and no useful parpose
would be obtained by an examination
of the merits of the defense, upon the
supposition that the State court right
fully retained its original jurisdic
ton. On these facts the court decide as
follows: In cases where the judicial power
of the United States can be applied only
| because thsy involve controversies between
citizens of different States. it rests with
| Congress to determine at what time the
power may be invoked end upon what
conditions, whether originally in the
| federal court or after suit brought IN TIT
| State court; and in the latter case at wha
stage of the proceedings. whether before
issue or trial by removal 60 a fedora
court, or after Judgment on appeal upon
writ Of error. As the constitution impose
no limitation upon the class OF cases 10
| volving controversies between citizens
different States to which the Judicial powe
OF the United States may be extended
| Congress may provide Tor bringing, q
the option of either of the parties, al
such controversies within the jurisdiction
of the federal judiciary. The act of Con
gress of March 2, 1867, in authorizing AM
requiring the removal to the Circuit Cour
of the United States of suit pending o.
sfterward brought in any State court IN
1 hatWapn q cIflZa n
State where the suit is brought and
citizen of another State, thereby invest
| the Circuit Court with jurisdiction to pas
| upon and determine the controversy whe
the removal is made, though that cour
could not have taken original cognizance
| the case. A suit to annul will rs mum
| ment of title and to restrain the enforce
ment of decree admitting 1t to probate
| is in essential particulars suit IN equity
and if by the law obtaining in a state, Gus
| tOmary or statutory, such snit can
maintained in one Of the courts, whateve
designation that court may bear, it may b
| maintained by original process i'll tho Gil
cult Court of the United States if the pal
ties are citizens of different States, Rt
versed. Mr.. Justice Field delivered ta
opinion.
Mrs. Margaret Littlefeld vs.. New o.
leans, Mobile and Texas Railroad.--Pet
TONER represents that her husband wa
employed by defendant, in june 1875. j
raising aud putting in proper place tn
depot in New Orleans; that while SO en-
ployed he was. by the negligence of tn
cor poration, instantly killed by the fallin
Of piece Of timber, crushing him in no
rible manner; that he was in the prime {
life, sober, industrious, and supported b
family; that the timber might easily hay
been secured, except for the negligence
the corporations employees; that decease