Case Name: Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1891-03-03
Citations: 45 F. 433
Docket Number: 
Parties: Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 45
Pages: 433–433

Head Matter:
Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.
March 3, 1891.)
ftlAfOYAT, OF CAUSES — PRACTICE—REMAND.
Where it appears that the petition lor removal was never presented to the slate court, but. to the clerk thereof, and filed by him, and a certified copy immediately made and given the defendant, a motion to remand will be granted.
At Law. On motion to remand.
J. L. McDonald, for plaintiff.
Howe & Perrin, for defendant.

Opinion:
Nelson, J.
This is a motion to remand made by the plaintiff. The correct practice is indicated by Judge Gresham in Shedd v. Fuller, 36 Fed. Rep. 609. The petition should be presented to the state court, and opportunity given that court to act. In this case the petition was presented to the clerk of the state court, and filed by him, and a certified copy immediately made and given the defendant. The court never had its attention called to the petition. This is not the proper practice indicated by the statute granting removals from the state court, or recognized by the United Htates supreme court.
Motion to remand granted.