The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-07-04
An important Decision.

We several days ago published tele-
gram concerning the case described below
but il was unsatisfactory. The Wheeling
Inteliigencer reports its substance as fol-
| lows:
A. Z. White, administrator OF j. ID.
White, deceased, brought an action on the
case in the Circuit Court OF Grcenbrier
county September II, 1881, against the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company,
| TO recover damages which he laid at S15,-
900 for the killing OF his interstate. AT the
| first term after the case was matured at
rules the defendant appeared and demur-
| red TO the declaration, and the case was con-
tinued. At the next term it filed its petition
and bond praying removal to the Federal
court. The State Circuit Court denied the
right to remove on the ground that the
application 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 con-
tinued. Notwithstanding the refusal OF
the State court to remove the case, the de-
PENDANT procured a transcript OF the re-
cord and filed the same in the Federal
1t then procured copy OF this order and
presented it TO the State court at Its next
term, and objected TO the court proceed
ing in the case on the ground that it had
been removed and was pending in the
Federal court Under these circumstances
the State court refused to proceed. In
October, 1852, the plaintiff filed his
petition in the Supreme Court OF this State
PRAYING a mdnddmaS to compel the Circuit
Court to proceed with the case. rule
was issued by ~ Supreme Court october
IA, 1882, retulH ,,i' on the 10th day OF the
January teii1 J. The defendant the
Judge OF the T., ait Court and also the
Chesapeake aA, Ohio Railway Company
resisted the issuing of the ndnddmus on
two grounds first, that Notwithstanding
that the State court had refused to remove
the case. yet the filing of the petition and
bond and filing transcript in the Federal
court, and docketing the case there, re-
moved the case from the jurisdiction OF
the State court, and whether removable or
not, the Federal court could alone decide
the question.
Second. That the Federal court had en-
tered non-suit in the case, and onloined
the plaintiff from asking a mopdafads from
the Supreme Court. The case was sub
mitted to the Supreme tV..' III January,
1888. On Saturday the supreme Court
announced its opinion Judge johns on,
its president, holding-first, that the case
was not removal =; second, tina; the thing
OF the petition an bond cannot have lie
effect, ipSO fdcto, 20 remove cause iron i
State to Federal court; because it is the
duty OF state court When en- application
is made TO remove cause thertliom TO 2
Federal court to iudiv.ally pass upon all
the questions involved in such apr .'cihon,
the sutliciency Of the petitioners bond and
surety. whether the application il Aldc in
time, the citizenship 81 the parties, and the
amount in contrc ,rsy, to hear the proof
on all these quest"riS, and thea ludicial!y
decide whether Il c; C for removal Is made
out under the act c, Congress, and if salts.
fed that the cause is removable to order IL
removed. otherwise to refuse.
When case is not removable and the
State court has so decided, the obtaining
OF transcript of the record and filing Il
in the Circuit Court of the United States
and docketing tht cause there can have nc
possible effect up a the jurisdiction OF the
} State court over aid cause; and 1t is the
duty OF the State court, even II notified o.
,
court, to pay no attention thereto, bu
proceed with tie case as though nj
: application TO remove had ever beer
made And II the State court undel
these circumstances refuses to proceed
with the cause the Supreme Court will
issue mdnddmuS to compel it to proceed
This in such case the Supreme Court O
Appeals will do, although the answer to tn,
r rule in the mandamuS proceeding shows
{ that a non-suit had been entered in tn,
Federal court, and that court had enjoineC
the petitioner for the mdndamuS from pro
scouting his petition in the Supreme Court
OF Appeals.
: The court Of last resort of a sovereign
{ State cannot by Federal court, by injunc-
ton or other process against the litigants
be deprived OF its power to control by man.
ddmns the inferior courts Of the State in
the discharge Of their duties.