Legal Opinion
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Miller
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 11, 1934No. 6 Div. 461PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOSTER, Justice.
The petition for removal to the federal court is not shown to have been accompanied with a bond as required by law. Without such bond, the petition, though sufficient, does not cause a removal of the suit. USCA title 28,. § 72, note 261.
It is not necessary that we consider the sufficiency of the petition, though it may have been filed in due time. 54 C. J. 306, notes 81, et seq.
It is conceded that if a proper petition and bond for removal be duly filed, the state court has no jurisdiction to proceed further. Ex parte Consolidated Graphite Corporation, 221 Ala. 394, 129 So.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Birmingham v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- City of Decatur v. GilliamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Ex Parte Consolidated Graphite CorporationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Stix & Co. v. KeithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ten Ball Novelty & Manufacturing Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Company v. HarrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- Ex Parte Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1997
- Bailey v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
- City of Birmingham v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.