State v. Port Royal & Augusta Ry. Co.
Citations
- 45 S.C. 413
Syllabus
<p>1. Removal of Causes. — To render a cause brought in a State Court removable to the Federal Courts, as arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the facts making it removable must appear on the face of the complaint, and must be a question embraced in sec. 553 of 24 Stat. of U. S., or sec. 434 of 25 Stat. of U. S.</p> <p>2. State — Citizen—Corporation.—A State is not a citizen, and a suit between a State and one of its citizens, or a corporation of another State, is not a suit between citizens of different States.</p> <p>3. Abatement — Railroads—The Act oe 1893 (21 Stat., 537,) did not have the effect to abate the suits then in progress for the winding up of its affairs, and the forfeiture of the charter of the Port Royal and Augusta Railway Co. Mr. Chief Justice McIver dissenting.</p> <p>4. Circuit Judge — Receivers—Chambers—Rev. Stat., Sec. 2244. Under section 2244 of Rev. Stat., a Circuit Judge may pass an order at chambers authorizing a receiver of a railroad to issue receiver’s certificates, upon notice to all parties in interest.</p> <p>5. Appeal — Parties—Order.—It is too late to object for the first time on appeal to an order made in the Circuit Court, on the ground that the necessary parties were not before the Court.</p> <p>6. Construction of Statutes. — To ascertain whether an act be public or private, we must look to the objects and purposes contemplated, and the scope and powers of the act. Dicta.</p> <p>7. Pleading — Practice.—A bill of revivor cannot be filed against a defunct corporation. Dicta.</p>
Judges: Gary, McIver, Pope
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court· 1892-12-12· cited 815×
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court· 1894-03-19· cited 409×
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1892-05-16· cited 303×
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1876-11-27· cited 268×
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court· 1894-02-05· cited 268×
- Stone v. South CarolinaSupreme Court· 1886-04-05· cited 238×
- In Re Pennsylvania Co.Supreme Court· 1890-12-22· cited 150×
- Bohanan v. NebraskaSupreme Court· 1887-10-17· cited 109×
- Pendleton v. RussellSupreme Court· 1892-04-18· cited 89×
- People v. RedingerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 49×
- Unity v. BurrageSupreme Court· 1881-02-28· cited 35×
- President of the Bank of Utica v. SmedesNew York Supreme Court· 1824-04-15· cited 14×
- Cantwell v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1892-01-08· cited 8×
- Pomeroy's Lessee v. The State Bank of IndianaSupreme Court· 1863-12-21· cited 6×
- CORN EXCHANGE BANK v. SCHEPPERS & OthersSupreme Court· 1884-04-21· cited 6×
Other cases named State v. Port Royal & Augusta Ry. Co.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.