Graves Vs. Corbin - Cases Cited

U.S. 571 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Graves v. Corbin

U.S. 571 (1890) Graves v. Corbin

unless all who were made defendants were parties. Therefore all of them were necessary parties. In Brinkerhoff v. Brown

was considered, recognized, and approved by the Court of Errors of New York, without a dissenting voice, in Fellows v. Fellows

Cowen 682. See also Railroad Co. v. Schuyler

stated has been applied by this Court in considering the question of removal in cases like the present. In Ayers v. Chicago

of the same state with the city, and that, such being the case, the suit was not removable. In Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Huntington

defenses do not create separate controversies within the meaning of the removal act. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Ide

Starin v. New

York, 115 U. S. 248 , and Sloane v. Anderson

To the cases above cited may be added Plymouth Mining Co. v. Amador

East Tennessee Railroad v. Grayson

Peninsula Iron Co. v. Stone

U. S. 535 , and Young v. Parker's

had taken jurisdiction of the cause under the petition for removal. We find reported, however, the case of Corbin v. Boies

remand the cause with costs against the party who wrongfully invoked the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Williams v. Nottawa

in the circuit court, although the point has not been formally raised in that court or in this Court, in Turner v. Farmers'

Railroad v. Swan

U. S. 138 , 114 U. S. 144 , and King Bridge. Co. v. Otoe

Co., 120 U. S. 225 , 120 U. S. 226 . In Stevens v. Nichols

court with costs against the party at whose instance the removal was made. This same principle was asserted in Crehore v. Ohio

date when it was so docketed. Page 132 U. S. 591 This same rule was applied at the present term in Jackson v. Alle

it to the state court. There is nothing in the foregoing views which involves the decision of this Court in Barney v. Latham

Graves Vs. Corbin - Cites