Case Name: MARTIN v. SNYDER
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1893-04-10
Citations: 148 U.S. 663
Docket Number: No. 131
Parties: MARTIN v. SNYDER.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
MARTIN v. SNYDER.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF' THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 131.
Argued and submitted March 9, 10, 1893.
Decided April 10, 1893.
A defendant residing -within a State in which an action is commenced in a court of the State, is not entitled, under the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, c. 373, to have the suit removed to the Circuit Court of the United States.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. D. W. Voorhees and Mr. I. B. Hilles, (with whom ivas Mr. Reese II. Voorhees on the brief,) for appellants. Mr. G. W. Kretzinger also filed a brief for appellants.
Mr. Allan C. Story for appellee.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice :
This was a bill of complaint filed by Samuel F. Engs, George Engs and Henry Snyder, Jr., of the city, county and State of New York, against Morris T. Martin and Carrie E. Martin, in the Circuit Court of Lake County in the State of Illinois, on the 27th of October, 1887.
November 7, 1887, the defendants preferred a petition for the removal of the cause to. the United States Circuit Court Avithin and for the Northern District of Illinois on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the case was transferred accordingly.
The petition stated "that the controversy in said suit is between citizens -of different States, and that the petitioners Avere at the time of the commencement of this suit and still are citizens of the State of Illinois, and that all the plaintiffs Avere then and still are citizens u£ the State of New York."
Under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 652, c. 373, it is the defendant or defendants aaJio are non-residents of the State in which the action is pending, who may remove the same into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district. The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of complainants and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to render a judgment against them for cos'ts in that court, and to remand the case to the state court. Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 533.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded accordingly.