History
  • No items yet
midpage
Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin
1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2008
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1884
Check Treatment
Wallace, J.

Since the decision in Miller v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 17 Fed. Rep. 97, the supreme court, in Gibson v. Bruce, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873, has construed the language of sections 2 and 3 of the removal act of 1875 to require as a condition of removal that the requisite diversity of citizenship exist both when the suit was begun and when the petition for removal is filed. That decision seems to control the present case, where the removal was procured by the plaintiff under subdivision 3 of section 639 of the Revised Statutes, the parties both being residents of New Jersey when the suit was brought, but the defendant having removed subsequently to Now York. The language of this subdivision is substantially similar-to that of section 2 of the removal act of 1875, so far as it relates to the question now under consideration, and the reasons stated in the opinion-of the court in Gibson v. Bruce apply with equal force to a removal under subdivision 3 of section 639.

The motion to remand is granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Date Published: Jan 7, 1884
Citation: 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2008
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.