Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/299/374/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:45:48+00:00

Document:
1. Obtaining removal of a case from a state to a federal court does not operate as a general appearance by the defendant. P. 299 U. S. 376.
2. Where a suit in the District Court is in personam, and not within any exceptional provision extending the reach of its process, service on the defendant, to be effective, must be made within the district. P. 299 U. S. 377.
3. An order of the District Court remanding a cause to a state court is not reviewable by mandamus. P. 299 U. S. 378.
which provides that an order remanding a cause to a state court shall be "immediately carried into execution" and no appeal or writ of error from the order shall be allowed, are in pari materia and, construed together, are intended to reach and include all cases removed from a state court into a federal court and remanded by the latter. P. 299 U. S. 378.
5. Where in an ordinary action for money in personam, removed from a state court, the defendant cannot be served within the district and will not voluntarily appear, the court is without federal jurisdiction to proceed with the cause, and, under the provisions above mentioned, should either dismiss it or remand it to the state court "as justice may require." P. 299 U. S. 381.
6. Whether justice will be better served by remand or by dismissal is determined by exercise of judicial discretion. P. 299 U. S. 382.
7. In a removed cause, if the federal court cannot proceed because service cannot be made upon the defendant within the district, and the state court, upon a remand, could obtain personal jurisdiction because of the wider reach of its process, and if dismissal by the federal court would deprive the plaintiff of all remedy because the time allowed for filing a new suit in the state court has expired, discretion is wisely exercised to remand, rather than dismiss, the case. P. 299 U. S. 387.
Certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals denying a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition directed to the judges of a district court for the purpose of vacating an order of remand.
This case involves an effort to obtain by mandamus and prohibition a reexamination and vacation of an order of a federal District Court remanding to a state court a suit theretofore removed into the former from the latter.
A citizen of Texas sued a corporate citizen of Missouri in a state court of Gregg County, Texas, to recover a sum in excess of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, upon a policy of workmen's compensation insurance, and caused process to be issued out of that court and served upon an alleged agent of the defendant. Without otherwise appearing in the state court, the defendant in due time and mode caused the suit to be removed, by reason of the diverse citizenship of the parties, into the federal court for the Eastern District of Texas, which includes Gregg County.
After the removal the defendant, appearing specially, showed that the alleged agent upon whom process had been served prior to the removal was not in fact its agent, and the federal court set aside the service. At the plaintiff's instance, further process was issued out of that court and served upon an agent of the defendant within the Western -- not Eastern -- District of Texas. Again appearing specially, the defendant challenged this service because made outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, and the service was set aside.
Obtaining the removal from the state court into the federal court did not operate as a general appearance by the defendant, [Footnote 1] and, as the service of process against it proved invalid and it declined to appear voluntarily, the federal court plainly was without personal jurisdiction of the defendant, although in other respects having jurisdiction of the suit.
The defendant had been admitted to do, and was doing, business in Texas, had an agent within the Western District upon whom process could be served in that district, but had no agent within the Eastern District where the suit was pending.
The suit was in personam, and not within any exceptional provision empowering the federal court to send its process outside its district. Therefore, that court's process could be effectively served only within the district. [Footnote 2] But the state court was not subject to such a limitation, and could send its process to any part of the state.
"an order of dismissal would prevent plaintiff from refiling [beginning anew] his suit within the time permitted by the statute of Texas, and would amount to a complete denial of his right to litigate the claim;"
and accordingly entered an order remanding the suit to the state court.
The defendant, conceiving that the remanding order was wrongly made, petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals for writs of mandamus and prohibition commanding the judge of the District Court to vacate that order and prohibiting him from giving any effect to it. The Circuit Court of Appeals entertained the petition, ordered the judge to show cause why the requested writs should not issue, received and considered his return disclosing the proceedings and matters already recited, and denied the petition. 82 F.2d 373. The case is here on certiorari.
We are of opinion the petition was rightly denied, first because the remanding order was not subject to appellate reexamination on petition for mandamus or otherwise, and secondly because, even if open to reexamination on petition for mandamus, the order was made in the exercise of lawful authority, and was appropriate to the situation in which it was made.
"In terms, it only abolishes appeals and writs of error, it is true, and does not mention writs of mandamus, and it is unquestionably a general rule that the abrogation of one remedy does not affect another. But in this case we think it was the intention of congress to make the judgment of the circuit court remanding a cause to the state court final and conclusive. The general object of the act is to contract the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The abrogation of the writ of error and appeal would have had little effect in putting an end to the question of removal, if the writ of mandamus could still have been sued out in this Court. It is true that the general supervisory power of this Court over inferior jurisdictions is of great moment in a public point of view, and should not, upon light grounds, be deemed to be taken away in any case. Still, although the writ of mandamus is not mentioned in the section, yet the use of the words, 'such remand shall be immediately carried into execution,' in addition to the prohibition of appeal and writ of error, is strongly indicative of an intent to suppress further prolongation of the controversy by whatever process. We are therefore of opinion that the act has the effect of taking away the remedy by mandamus as well as that of appeal and writ of error."
The provisions in the act of 1887 on which that decision and others to the same effect were based are still in force as parts of §§ 71 and 80, Title 28, U.S.Code. They are in pari materia, are to be construed accordingly, rather than as distinct enactments, and, when so construed, show, as was held in Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U.S.
56, 123 U. S. 58, that they are intended to reach and include all cases removed from a state court into a federal court and remanded by the latter.
It follows that the remanding order of the District Court was not subject to reexamination by the Circuit Court of Appeals on the petition for mandamus.
an element of the court's jurisdiction as a federal court; but the assumption is a mistaken one. By repeated decisions in this Court, it has been adjudged that the presence of the defendant in a suit in personam, such as the one now under discussion, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district (formerly circuit) court as a federal court, [Footnote 11] and that, in the absence of this element, the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.
It follows that, even if a remanding order were open to reexamination on a petition for mandamus, the petition was in this instance rightly denied.
Wabash Western Ry. v. Brow, 164 U. S. 271; Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U. S. 437; Cain v. Commercial Publishing Co., 232 U. S. 124; General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore R. Co., 260 U. S. 261.
Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 37 U. S. 328-330; Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435, 103 U. S. 439-440; Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U. S. 276, 261 U. S. 279; Robertson v. Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 268 U. S. 622.
Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507.
Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, supra.
This provision is still in force as part of § 80, title 28, U.S.Code.
Dillon, Removal of Causes (3d Ed.) § 82; Conkling's Treatise (5th Ed.) p. 170; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch 421, 8 U. S. 428-429.
The Act of March 3, 1887, was corrected in particulars not here material, and as corrected was reenacted, by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433.
This provision is still in force as part of § 71, title 28, U.S.Code.
The cases are collected and their effect is stated in Gay v. Ruff, 292 U. S. 25, 292 U. S. 28-29. It was there also pointed out and definitely held that, under the general statute controlling review on certiorari by the Supreme Court, it is admissible for that court to review a decision of a Circuit Court of Appeals directing a District Court to remand a cause to a state court. P. 292 U. S. 30. Therefore the general rule as stated above is limited to remanding orders made by the District (formerly Circuit) Courts.
"Jurisdiction is the right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to the final determination of a cause upon the pleadings and evidence. It exists in the circuit courts of the United States under the express terms of the act of August 13, 1888, if the plaintiff be a citizen of one state, the defendant a citizen of another, if the amount in controversy exceed $2,000 (afterwards changed to $3,000), and the defendant be properly served with process within the district."
Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618; Remington v. Central Pacific R. Co., 198 U. S. 95; Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 198 U. S. 424; Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 198 U. S. 477; Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U. S. 437; Merriam Co. v. Saalfield, 241 U. S. 22; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U. S. 128.
Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch 421, 8 U. S. 428-429; Texas Transportation Co. v. Seeligson, 122 U. S. 519, 122 U. S. 522; Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451, 149 U. S. 460-461; Pond v. Sibley, 7 F. 129, 138; Gombert v. Lyon, 80 F. 305; Peters v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 149 F. 290, 294.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 80
 § 82
 v. 
 § 71
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.