Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-07
COURT {, . d: ! DECISIONS T:
Notes. MOI Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY w.B- MARTIN.
Exclusively for virElnian-Pllot)
SOUTHERN r. CO. v. HUDGINs.
Supreme Court Of Georgia.
April % 1899

SOUTHERN IL. CO. v. SAUDIlNS.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
April %, 1899.
WHEN a PETITION TO REMOVE A
* CASE TO THE u. S. COURT FROM
A STATE COURT is FILED, AC-
COMPANIED BY A PROPER BOND,
THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE
T STATE COURT TO DETERMINE IS
WHETHER THE RIGHT TO RE
NtOyEyAPPEARs ON THE FACE
OF TIE PETITION AND RECORD.
IF 1T DOES. THE POWER OF
THAT COURT is ENDED.
IN SUCH CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS TO REMOVE
NEED BE GIVEN THE OTHER
PARTY.
an order removing the cause to the
United States Court and afterwards set
aside said order from which last order
the dcfendant company appealed.
The Court says:
Under the act OF Congress of March
3, 1887 ca Stat. $685. it Is made the duty
OF the State Court, when q proper pc
tdtion and bond for removed under the
terms of the act are presented, to ac-
cept the same. and proceed no further
In such suit. The provisions of this act
nowhere require any notice to be given
to the opposite party OF the proceed
inEs taken to accomplish the removal
Indeed, the contemplation OF the act,
as clearly inferable from the third sec
ton, is that, whenever any party may
be entitled to remove such u suit, the
only requirement to accomplish tile re-
moval is to present n petition therefor,
which, in connection with lthe record,
shows the suit to be removable under
the act, and present bond satisfactory
to the Court, conditioned as provided
ny the statute: 1t has been expressly
decided by this Court lin the case OF
Ficklin v. Tarver, SO Ga. 263. that no.
lice TO the opposite party Is not neces-
snry. On the subject of notice this
Court there said: when the petition
and bond are made and filed. the matter
ls ready for the Court to act upon. If
It Is In the power of the State, by sta
tute, rules, or practice. or otherwise,
to make notice n condition precedent.
In addition to what the act of Congress
has prescribed. this State has not done
So" Mr. Black. in his treatise on the
laws and practice governing the re-
moval OF causes, says: ut is not neces-
sary for the defendant to notify the
plaintiff or his attorney of his inten-
ton to apply for the removal Of the
case. or of his filing a petition and
bond for that purpose 1t is
purely a matter of favor or courtesy
to the adverse party and his counsel,
and the omission to give notice will not
warrant the State Court in refusing
the application" Black, Dill. Rem.
causes, section 1SS. 1t was therefore
not necessary that any notice should
nave been given to Mrs. Hudgins or her
counsel OF the proceedings to remove
the case, to render the order of removal
valid and legal.
= The further grounds upon which
n .rrI,t -
oil removal may be considered under
one head. 1t is urged that the defend
ant is not n foreign. but is n domestic
corporation. and that IT is not a citizen
OF another State, but at the time of the
commencement of the suit it was n citi-
zen OF the State of Georgia, and not
entitled, under the acts OF Congress. to
remove the cause from the Stat to the
United States Circuit Court These OBJ
jections raise the question of fact
whether the defendant was at the time
OF the institution of the suit citizen
Of Virginia, as it is alleged I'm the peti-
lion Tor remoVsl or was In fact n cti-
zen of Georgia. or corporation organ
lHed ana opcratin n line of,railroad un-
der franchises granted by this Stale.
In the case of Koran V. Strachan, So
Ga. 900. this court ruled that, when a
petition for removal OF the cause TO n
circuit Court of the United States is
filed in cause pending IN State
court, the only question left for the
State court to determine is the question
or law. whether admitting the facts
stated in the petition to be true. IL
appears on the face of the record. In.
Guiding the petition, the pleadings and
The proceedings down to that time. that
The petitioner is entitled to a. removal.
and, if an issue of fact is made upon
the petition. that issue must be tried
in the Circuit Court. The petition for
removal was regular, filed in due time
and the security satisfactory to the
court. So that, under the rule recoe-
nized by the authorities just cited, the
objections to removal set out in the
second and third grounds can only he
determined by reference to the record
Ihe petition for removal AYERS that the
defendant was at the time of the com
menaement of this suit, and still is. n
corporate body under the laws of Vir-
gInia, and was then and is now n resi-
dent and citizen of the State of Vjr.
glnia, and a nonresident of the State
of Georgia. The truth as to whether
the defendant is a citizen of Georgia
must be determined by the Circuit
Court. and IL found against the con-
tention Of diverse citizenship, under the
law, the case would be remanded TO
the State court; and no appeal or writ
or error from the decision so remand
Ing the case is allowed. Reversed.