Case Name: City of New Orleans vs. H. O. Seixas et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 36
Docket Number: No. 7547
Parties: City of New Orleans vs. H. O. Seixas et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 36–41

Head Matter:
No. 7547.
City of New Orleans vs. H. O. Seixas et als.
An appeallies from an order of the District Court removing a oauso to tho U. S. Court. j Such appeal can be taken by motion in open court as appeals are taken from other judgments.
The enforced appearance of the appellant from such order in the U. S. Court, pendiug such appeal, is not an acquiescence in, or voluntary execution of, the judgment or order appealed from.
Only suits involving rights depending upon a disputed construction of tbe Constitution and laws of the United States are removable from the State to tho "National Courts under the words of the Act of Congress, “ arising under” that Constitution and those laws. There must be some question actually involved in the case, depending for its determination upon the correct construction of tho Constitution, or some law of Congress or treaty, in order to sustain the Federal jurisdiction under tbo olause containing those words.
"When the interest of one or more parties to a suit is so bound up with the others that its legal presence as a party is an absolute necessity, it is an indispensable party, and must be so considered on an application to remove tbe whole suit.
Congress, in determining the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts over controversies between citizens of different States, has not provided for the removal from a Slato Court of a suit in which there is controversy not wholly between citizens of different States, and to the full or final determination of which ono of the indispensable partiesen the side seeking the removal is a citizen of tho same State with one or more of tho parties agaiDSt whom the removal is sought.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Highior, J.
JE. If. MeGaleb, City Attorney, and JE. If. Farrar for Plaintiff and Appellant.
ICennard, Howe & Prentiss and House di Grant for Defendants and Appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
The appellees move to dismiss on three grounds:
1. That no appeal lies from an order removing a cause to the Circuit Court of the United States.
The contrary has been repeatedly held by this Court. State ex rel. Coons vs. Judge, 23 Ann. 29, and cases therein cited; Goodrich vs, Huuton, 29 Ann. 372; Tunstall vs. Madison Parish, 30 Ann. 472.
2. If such an appeal lies, it can be taken only by petition and citation.
No law nor reason is given for this ground and we know of none. Tiie appeal herein was taken by motion in open court on the same day the order of removal was made, and two days afterwards the appellees were even formally notified of it through the sheriff.
3. That the appellant has acquiesced in and voluntarily executed the order appealed from by appearing in the case in the U. S. Court, and by trying questions in that Court on the merits.
We have already held that on a motion to dismiss on the ground of acquiescence, the issue of fact, if disputed or doubtful, must be referred to the lower court for hearing. N. O. Rail. Co. vs. Cres. City R. R. Co., 33 Ann. 1278. There is a certified copy of proceedings taken in the U. S. Court before us, and an affidavit of the City counsel, and giving to them the consideration we would if introduced in the lower court on a reference, we find they do not sustain the allegation of acquiescence.
The only proceedings submitted to us are a rule upon the sheriff to shewr cause why he should not deliver to the Marshal the certificates of stock in the Water Works Company which had been sequestered; and another to set aside all the writs of injunction and sequestration that had been taken in the State Court; and a third to compel the Company to transfer the stock theretofore sequestered and released, upon which the Company moved that the City of New Orleans be made a party to the rule, and that being done the plaintiff appeared and resisted the rule.
There was thus neither a voluntary appearance nor execution of the order appealed from. The defendants, having procured the removal of the cause to the U. S. Court, there initiate proceedings that provoke and compel the interposition of the plaintiff and his appearance in that forum, and then plead his appearance as a bar to the further hearing of the case in the State Court. This is dragging one against his will to a place, and then pleading his enforced presence there as a reason why he should not return whence he came.
It is settled that if a party failed in his efforts to obtain a removal and wTas forced to trial in the State Court, his appearing there and contesting the case is not a w'aiver of his right. Ins. Co. vs. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214; The Removal Cases, 10 Otto, 457; Dillon on Removals, $$ 84, 88.
It would seem it ought to be equally clear that if a party failed in his efforts to prevent a removal and was forced to trial in the U. S. Court, his appearing there and contesting the case should not be a waiver of his right to a trial in the State Court, nor be considered an acquiescence in the order of removal, if he has continued to maintain that right by appealing from that order and by prosecuting such appeal with diligence.
The motion is refused.