Skip to content


Burlington, C.R. and N. Ry. Vs. Dunn - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number121 U.S. 182
AppellantBurlington, C.R. and N. Ry.
RespondentDunn
Excerpt:
.....refused to let go its jurisdiction on a petition for removal and in which the supreme court of the state affirmed that ruling, is within the spirit of rule 32, 103 u. s. 591 -592, relating to the advancement of causes, and the court, on motion in such a cause, advances it to be heard under the rules prescribed by rule 6, 108 u.s. 574-575, in regard to motions to dismiss. this was a motion to advance. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this case is within the spirit, although not within the letter, of rule 32. the state court refused to let go its jurisdiction on a petition for removal, and the supreme court of the state has affirmed the ruling of the trial court to that effect. the only question for our consideration on the writ of error is.....
Judgment:
Burlington, C.R. & N. Ry. v. Dunn - 121 U.S. 182 (1887)
U.S. Supreme Court Burlington, C.R. & N. Ry. v. Dunn, 121 U.S. 182 (1887)

Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway v. Dunn

Submitted April l, 1887

Decided April 4, 1887

121 U.S. 182

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Syllabus

A case brought here in error from the supreme court of a state, in which the trial court refused to let go its jurisdiction on a petition for removal and in which the supreme court of the state affirmed that ruling, is within the spirit of Rule 32, 103 U. S. 591 -592, relating to the advancement of causes, and the Court, on motion in such a cause, advances it to be heard under the rules prescribed by Rule 6, 108 U.S. 574-575, in regard to motions to dismiss.

This was a motion to advance.

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

This case is within the spirit, although not within the letter, of Rule 32. The state court refused to let go its jurisdiction on a petition for removal, and the supreme court of the state has affirmed the ruling of the trial court to that effect. The only question for our consideration on the writ of error is whether this decision was right. The case is advanced, to be brought on for hearing in the way provided by Rule 32 -- that is to say, under the rules prescribed by Rule 6 in regard to motions to dismiss writs of error or appeals.


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