Skip to content


St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Ry. Co. Vs. Burton - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number111 U.S. 788
AppellantSt. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Ry. Co.
RespondentBurton
Excerpt:
.....& manitoba ry. co. v. burton - 111 u.s. 788 (1884) u.s. supreme court st. paul, minneapolis & manitoba ry. co. v. burton, 111 u.s. 788 (1884) st. paul, minneapolis and manitoba railway company submitted april 21, 1884 decided may 5, 1884 111 u.s. 788 i n error to the circuit court of the united states for the district of minnesota syllabus it is not necessary that a transcript of a decree of naturalization should be accompanied by a certificate that the judge of the court was commissioned and qualified in order to entitle it to be received in evidence. the defendant in error commenced this action against the plaintiff in error as a common carrier in a state court. the cause was removed to the circuit.....
Judgment:
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co. v. Burton - 111 U.S. 788 (1884)
U.S. Supreme Court St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co. v. Burton, 111 U.S. 788 (1884)

St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway Company

Submitted April 21, 1884

Decided May 5, 1884

111 U.S. 788

I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Syllabus

It is not necessary that a transcript of a decree of naturalization should be accompanied by a certificate that the judge of the court was commissioned and qualified in order to entitle it to be received in evidence.

The defendant in error commenced this action against the plaintiff in error as a common carrier in a state court. The cause was removed to the circuit court of the United States on the allegation that the plaintiff below was an alien. In the circuit court, the plaintiff below moved to remand the cause, averring that he was a citizen by reason of the naturalization of his father. Proof was offered of the father's naturalization, which was received by the court against the objection of the defendant below, and an order was made remanding the cause. The

Page 111 U. S. 789

defendant below brought the case here by writ of error to review that order. The defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error and to affirm the judgment.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The order remanding this case is affirmed. The Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 5, 18 Stat. 470, makes it the duty of the circuit court to remand a suit which has been removed from a state court when it satisfactorily appears that the "suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said circuit court." The exemplification of the record of the naturalization of Moses Burton, which was offered in evidence, did not require, to complete its authentication, the certificate of the clerk under the seal of his office that the judge of the court was duly commissioned and qualified. The certificates may be to some extent defective in form, but we think the record as a whole could properly be considered by the judge on the question of remanding the cause.

Affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //