Ex parte Andrews
Supreme Court of Alabama
Application by Bufus E. Andrews and Charles A. Mott, for a mandamus to tbe circuit court of Montgomery, Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite, presiding, requiring that court to transfer to tbe Federal court of tbe district a certain suit pending in said circuit court, wherein Elmore, Keyes & Morrisett were plaintiffs, and said Andrews and Mott were defendants jointly with Bichard Busteed.
Read the full summary
Application by Bufus E. Andrews and Charles A. Mott, for a mandamus to tbe circuit court of Montgomery, Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite, presiding, requiring that court to transfer to tbe Federal court of tbe district a certain suit pending in said circuit court, wherein Elmore, Keyes & Morrisett were plaintiffs, and said Andrews and Mott were defendants jointly with Bichard Busteed. That action was commenced, as is shown by the transcript which was made an exhibit to the petition, on the 3d Tune, 1867; and the complaint was in the following words : “ The plaintiffs claim of the defendants twenty…
1Opinion of the CourtA. J. Walkee, C. J.
An action in tort was brought by citizens of the State of Alabama, against three defendants. Two of the defendants, alleging that they are citizens of another State, and that the amount in controversy exceeds five hundred dollars, asked of-the court below a transfer of the cause into the circuit court of the United States. The circuit court overruled the application, and motion is now made to this court for a mandamus, Requiring that the application for removal should be granted. A careful consideration of the subject fully convinces us, that the ruling of the circuit judge was correct, and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Strawbridge v. CurtissSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Craig v. LeslieSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
- Layman v. HendrixSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Ward v. ArredondoU.S. Circuit Court for New York · 1825
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Henderson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911