Flash v. Dillon
United States Circuit Court
Motion to Remand. cited 16 Wall. 190; 19 Feu. Rep. 49; 4 Dill. 557; 99 ü. S. 80; 10 Fed. Rep. 406.
1Opinion of the CourtSabtn, J.
In tliis case it is urged that the same has been improperly removed to this court, the same not being a “suit” within the terms oí the act, and that it is virtually an appendage to the suit of Flash, Lewis & Co. v. R. Bruhn, No. 1,654, wherein judgment was rendered September 26, 1877, in the district court of Bowie county, Texas. In the state courts this class of proceedings is virtually recognized as a “suit,” and so generally understood and considered by the public and the profession; but the question seems to be whether, in point of fact, it is such a “suit” as can be removed to this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bank v. Turnbull & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
3Cited by9 opinions
- Braithwaite v. JordanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Misani v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
- Rose v. MinisNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Finn v. Rotating Valve Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Hutchinson v. GoceliakNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.