HURST
v.
WESTERN AND ATLANTIC RAILROAD COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In an 1867 removal statute case, the Supreme Court held that a citizen of the state where a suit was brought could not remove that suit to federal court based on prejudice or local influence, even though a non-resident defendant could do so under the same statute. The Court affirmed the Circuit Court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction where the removing party was a Tennessee citizen suing in Tennessee against a Georgia citizen.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The act of March’ 2, 1867, provided, in substance, that where a suit was pending in a State court, between, a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought and a citizen of another State, and the matter in dispute exceeded the sitm of $500, such citizen of another State, whether plaintiff or defendant, if he made and filed in such State court an affidavit, stating “ that he has reason to and does believe that, from prejudice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in such State court,” might have the cause removed to the Circuit Court of the United States. Here the suit was brought in a court of the State of Tennessee, by a citizen of that State, against a citizen of the State of Georgia.
Under the statute, the party who was a citizen of Tennessee could not have" the cause removed to the Circuit Court, because he was a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought, and not of “ another State;” but the citizen of Georgia could. In this case, the removal was made upon the application of the party who was a citizen of Tennessee, and, consequently, the Circuit Court properly refused to entertain jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed.