The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1883-07-02
a COURT CONTEST.
a DISPUTE sgrwEEN TRIBUNALS
ftls stAta and Federal Gorstlmsnt Concerning
sJiii,drslloa Ia Certain cass-Ap'sis
b Ion kspdsrsS Ia the supras Court
wAiehis Of Aueh Importance.

A. L White, administrator Of ]. d. White,
deceased, brought an action on the cate in the
Circuit Court OF Gresnbrler county, ssptem'
bsr IL, 1881, against the O. & o. Railway
Company, to recover damages which he laid
at SIS, 900, for the killing OF his iutes!ate. AT
the first term after the case was matured at
rules, the defendants peaFted-and demnf-
red 10 the declaration and the case was con.
tinued. At the next term II filed It's petition
aud bond prayinga removal to the Federal
Court, This court denied tho right
to remove on the ground that the
application was made too late; that
under the act OF Congress, the Ap'
pIication should be made at the first term st
which the case was triable, which was the
term before. Pleadings were made up and
the case continued. Notwithsland-
ing the refusal OF tue State Court
TO remove the case, the defendant
procured transcript OF the record and died
the same In the Federal Court, aud that Court
docksttd the ease. 1t then procured u copy
OF this order aud presented 1t to the Ststs
Court at It's next term, and objected to the
Court proceeding In the case on the ground
that Il had been removed and was pending
IN the Federal Court Under these cir
camstances The State Court refused TO pro-
Gee. In October, 1882, the plaintiff filed his
petition in the Supreme Court Of this State,
praying mdidaRIuS to compel the Circuit
Court 10 proceed with the case. A rule was
Issued by the Supreme Court October II, 1882,
returnahle on the 10th day Of the January
term, 1883. The defendant, the Judge Of TIE
Circuit Court, and also the @. & o. Railway
Company resisted the issuing OF the man.
damlls on two grounds; first, that notwith-
standing that the State Court had refused to
remove the csse, yet the filing Of the petition
and bond and filing a transcript In the Fed
eral Court, aud docketing the case there re-
moved the case from the Jurisdiction OF the
State Court, and whether removable or not
the Federal Court coaid alone decide the
question.
Sseond-That the Federal Court had enter
ed non-3uit in the case, and enjoined the
plaintiff from asking mald1muS from the
Supreme Court. The case was Submitted TO the
Supreme Cour. in January 1888. Sat lrday the
Supreme Cou,t announced its opinion by
Judge johnson, It's president, holding, first;
that the case was not removable. Second,
that the fillngof tho petition and bond cannot
have the effect, ipS0 flstO u remove cause
from a Stats TO Federal court; because It is
the duty Of State court when an applicatton
Is made 10 remove cause therefrom toa
Federal court, TO judicially pass upon all the
questions involved In such application, the
sufticiency Of the petition, bond aud surety,
whether tho application Is made In time, the
citizenship OF the partles, and the amountin
controversy, TO hear the proof on all these
question: and then iud:cially decide whether
case for removal is made under the act Of
Congress, and II satisfied that the cause is re-
movable to orIer 1t removed, otherwise TO re-
fuse.
When case Is not removable and the
State Court has so decided, the obtaining ola
transcript OF the record and filing II with the
Circuit Court OF the United states and dock
citing the cause there can have no possible ef.
feet upon the Jurisdiction OF the State Court
over said cause; and 1t Ia the duty OF the
State Court, o. en- II notified OF such dOcketing
OF the case In the Federal Court, 10 pay no
attention thereto, but proceed with the case
as though no application 10 remove had ever
bsen made And II the State Court under
these circumstances refuses to pro-
ceed with the cause the Supreme Court will
issue mdndamuS to compel 1t to proceed,
This In such case the Supreme Court of APP
pesls will do, although the answer to the rule
in the mdndamuS proceeding shows that 3
non-suit had been entered In tho Federal
Court and that Court had enjoined the petit
toner for the maHddmnS from prosecuting his
petition in the Supreme Court Of Appeals
The Court Of last resort OF sovereign State
cannot by Federal Court, by injunction or
other process against the litigants, be de-
prived OF its power 10 control by man
dnmuS the inferior courts OF the State In the
discharge OF their du,ies.