McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell

Citations

• 228 U.S. 278
• 33 S. Ct. 465
• 57 L. Ed. 835
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2371

Syllabus

<p>Au order of the United States Circuit Court remanding the cause to the state court is not reviewable here, Missouri Pacific By. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U- S. 556, nor can this object be accomplished by indirection. ' t</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Whether individual members of a copartnership should be joined as defendants or substitutéd 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 affect the right to remove.</p> <p>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.</p>