Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1883-07-06
An Important Decision.

1t will be recolected that Mr.. John D.
White. an old citizen of Stanton, re-
moved to Ronceverte, W. Va, and there
entered on hotel keeping. One day in at
tempting to save little child who was on
the railroad track In front of the hotel he
was run over by the cars and killed. His
administrator and son, Augustus e. White
brought an action on the case in the Cir.
cult Court of Greenbrier county Septem-
Der II, 1881, against the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway company, 20 recover DANA
ges which he laid at s15 600 for the killing
of his intestate. The Wheeling Latezziqen,
Ger gives the following summary of a very
important decision in the suit:
At the first term after the case was ma.
tured at rules the defendant appeared and
demurred to the declaration, and the case
was continued. At the next term it filed
its petition and bond praying removal to
Court denied the right to remove on the
ground that the appncation was made too
late; that under the act of Congress the
application should be made at the first
term at which the case was triable, which
was the term before. Pleadings were
made up and the case continued. Not
Withstanding the refusal of the State court
to remove the case. the defendant procur-
ed transcript of the record and filed the
same in the Federal court, and that court
| docketed The case. 1t then procured a
copy of this order and presented it tn the
Stale court at the next term, and objected
to the court proceeding in the case on the
ground that 1T had been removed and was
| pending in the Federal court. Under
these circumstances the State court refus-
cd to proceed. In October, 1882, the plain
| tiff filed his petition in the Supreme Court
| of this State praying anaGndanaus to COM
| pei the Circuit Court to proceed with the
case. A rule was issued by the Supreme
| Court October IA, 1882, returnable on the
10th day of the January term, 1883. The
defendant 1.-THE Judge OF the Circuit Court
and also the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail,
way Company resisted the issuing of the
naandanaus on two gruunds-frst, that not
withstauding that the State court had re-
fused to remove the case, yet the filing of
the petition and bond and filing tran
script in the Federal court. and docketing
The case there, removed the Case from the
jurisdiction of the State court, and Wheth-
er removable or not, the Federal court
could alone decide the question.
Second. That the Federal court had en-
tered non-snit in the case, and enjoined
the plaintiff from asking a naandanaus from
the Supreme Court. The case was SUBJ
mitted to the Supreme Court in January.
1888. On Saturday the Supreme Court
announced its opinion by Judge johnson.
it's president, holdlng-Grst, t6at the case
was not removable; second, that the filing
of the petition and bond cannot have the
effect, apSo tdcs0, to remove cause from
State to Federal court; be. ause it is the
duty OF State court when an application
is made to remove cause therefrom to
Federal court to judieially pass upon all
the questions involved in such application.
the sufficiency Of the petitioners bond and
surety, whether the application is made in
time, the citizenship of the parties, and the
amount in controversy, to hear the proof
on all these questions, and then judicially
decide whether a case for removal is made
out under the act of Congr, IS, and If sat
isied that the cause is removable to order
it removed, otherwise to refuse.
When a case IS not removable and the
State court has so decided, the obtaining
OF transcript Of the record and filing it
in the Circuit Court of the United States
and docketing the cause there can nave no
possible effect upon the Jurisdiction of the
State court over said cause; and it is the
duty of the State court, even If notified of
Sucu Q0cKellng OIL the case IN Gno Federal
court, to pay no attention thereto, but
proceed with the case as though no appli-
cation to remove had ever been made.
And if the State court under these cir
cumstances refuses to proceed with the
cause the Supreme Court will issue man.
danaus to compel it TO proceed. This in
such case the Supreme Court of Appeals
will do, although the answer to the rule
in the 41lGnddfans proceeding shows that a
non-suit had been entered in the Federal
court, and that court had enloined the
petitioner for the maandanaus from prose-
cutting his petition 10 the Supreme Court
of Appeals.
The court of last resort of sovereign
State cannot by Federal court, by injunc-
tion or other process against the htigants.
be deprived OF its power to control by man
d0naus the inferior courts of the State in
the discharge Of their duties.