McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell
228 U.S. 278 (1913)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell, 228 U.S. 278 (1913)

McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell

No. 149

Argued January 27, 1913

Decided April 7, 1913

228 U.S. 278

Syllabus

An order of the United States Circuit Court remanding the cause to the state court is not reviewable here, Missouri Pacific Ry. v. Fitzgerald,160 U. S. 556, nor can this object be accomplished by indirection.

Where the state court, in denying a second petition for removal, simply bows to the decision of the federal court when it remanded the record after the first attempt to remove, it does not deny any federal right of the petitioner within the meaning of § 709, Rev.Stat.

Where the second petition to remove presents no different question from that presented by the first, it is proper for the state court to follow the decision of the federal court remanding the record and deny the petition.

Page 228 U. S. 279

In this case, it does not appear that any different questions were presented on the second petition than on the first, and if any federal right of the petitioner to remove was denied, it was denied by the federal, and not by the state, court.

Whether individual members of a copartnership should be joined as defendants or substituted for the copartnership in a suit brought against the partnership under a state law permitting copartnerships to be sued as entities is a question of local law only cognizable in this Court so far as it may elect the right to remove.

This Court, having no jurisdiction to review the remanding order of the Circuit Court which the state court followed in denying a second petition to remove, refrains from expressing any opinion upon the correctness of that order.

Writ of error to review 121 N.W. 1039 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court under § 709, Rev.Stat., to review a decree of the state court denying a second petition for removal of the cause from the federal court, are stated in the opinion.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.