« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Page Hale, Ayer & Co. v. B., C. R. & N. CIRCUIT COURT, E. D. MISSOURI. R. Co....
203 Tschergi & Schwinde, Bullock & Clark County, Whitford v......
644, 837 Co. V.. 345 Douglass, Milnev.
37 Ellerbe, In re.
530 Fletcher v. New York Life Ins. Co., 526 CIRCUIT COURT, D. Iowa, C. D.
Gay v. Joplin... Burham v. Fritz...
Gentry v. Grand View Min. & Smelt.
..544, 843 Fritz, Burham v.
Grand View Min, & Smelt. Co.,
.....544, 843 CIRCUIT COURT, D. IOWA, N. D. Harrison v. Union Pac. Ry. Co..... 52 Hawkins, Stinson v..
833 John V. Farwell & Co., Ohlquist v., 305 Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis & N.
0. T. Co....
516 Ohlquist v. John V. Farwell & Co., 305
650 Milne v. Douglass.
37 CIRCUIT COURT, D. Iowa, S. D. New York Life Ins. Co., Fletcher v. 526 O'Brien, Phelan v.
656 Am. Cent. Ins. Co., Bailey v........ 250 Phelan v. O'Brien.
656 Bailey v. Am. Cent. Ins. Čo........ 250 St. Louis & N. 0. T. Co., Hibernia
Ins. Co. V...
516 Stinson v. Hawkins,
833 CIRCUIT COURT, D. Iowa, W. D.
Stout v. Yaeger Milling Co... 802 McCoy, Percival v........
379 Union Pac. Ry. Co., Harrison v..... 522 Percival v. McCoy..
379 Whitford v. Člark County......644, 837
Yaeger Milling Co., Stout v......... 802 CIRCUIT COURT, N. D. Iowa.
Circuit Court, W. D. MISSOURI, E. D. Illinois Cent. R. Co., McCabe v..... 827 McCabe v. Illinois Cent. R. Co...... 827 Crittenden, Ralston v.
508 Dixon, In re.
109 Ralston v. Crittenden.
508 CIRCUIT COURT, D. KANSAS.
CIRCUIT COURT, W. D. MISSOURI, W. D. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. 106 Burnes, Courtright v
317 Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Atchison,
Courtright v. Burnes.
317 T. & S. F. R. Co...
CIRCUIT COURT, D. MINNESOTA.
CIRCUIT COURT, D. NEBRASKA.
Burlington & M. R. R. Co.,
103 Brewis v. City of Duluth and Village
Domestic & For. Missionary Society of Duluth......
161 Carson, Tuedt v...
100 City of Duluth and Village of Duluth, Brewis v. ...
Hinman, Domestic & For. Missionarv Society v.....
161 Gottfried v. Stahlmann. 673
198 Griesser v. McIlrath..
Kellogg v. Miller. 373
Little, Giles v. Kennedy, Messchaert v.. 242
198 Kennedy, Sahlgaard v.
Miller, Kellogg v. 242
Taboreck v. B. & M. R. R. Co...... 103 Kennedy, Stricker v...
242 Mather v. Nesbit
872 Mcllrath, Griesser v.
373 Messchaert v. Kennedy
NINTH CIRCUIT. Nesbit, Mather v.
872 Sahlgaard v. Kennedy
242 Smith, Bartlett v...
263 CIRCUIT Court, D. CALIFORNIA. Stahlmann, Gottfried v.
673 Stricker v. Kennedy.. 242 Ah Sing, In re...
286 Tuedt v. Carson. 353' Ah Tie, In re....
Page Chinese Cabin Waiter, Case of the... 286 Southern Pac, R. Co., County of San Chinese Laborers on Shipboard, Case Mateo v.
. 145, 722 of the... 291 Stanly, Hayner v.
217 Chinese Merchant, Case of the.. 605 County of San Mateo v. So. Pac.R.
DISTRICT Court, D. CALIFORNIA. Co..
.145, 722 Crellin v. Ely.. 420 Simpson v. Spreckels....
93 Dinwiddie, San Francisco & N. R.
Spreckels, Simpson v....
789 Ely, Crellin v.
CIRCUIT COURT, D. OREGON.
540 Hayner v. Stanly:
625 Low Yam Chow, In re.
39 Nichols, Foyev
625 Quong Woo, In re.
540 Railroad Tax Cases, The.
722 San Francisco & N. R. Co. v. Din
DISTRICT COURT, D. OREGON. Sonoma County Tax Case, The..... 789 Whistler, The
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
átnited States Circuit and District Courts.
LAWRENCE v. NORTON and others.
(Circuit Court, N. D. Texas. 1882.)
1. REMOVAL OF CAUSE--QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS.
Where the petition of the plaintiff presents a question which arises under the laws of the United States, the cause is removable under section 2 of the act
of March 3, 1875, without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 2. SAME--CONDITION IN MARSHAL's BOND--SECTION 783, REV. ST.
Where the condition of a marshal's official bond is in strict conformity with the condition prescribed by section 783 of the Revised Statutes, and the exceptions filed raise the question of what is the proper construction of the condition, and the construction of the language of the section is brought in question, the cause is removable.
Heard on Motion to Remand.
The Revised Statutes of the United States, $ 783, require that every marshal, before he enters upon the duties of his office, shall give bond, with two good and sufficient sureties, for the faithful performance of said duties by himself and his deputies.
In pursuance of this statute, A. Banning Norton, one of the defendants, having been nominated and appointed marshal of the United States for the northern district of Texas, executed his official bond, dated May 1, 1879, in the penalty of $20,000, with the other defendants as sureties, conditioned as required by the statute. During Norton's term of office, Lawrence, the plaintiff in this action, brought suit in the district court of Kaufman county, Texas, against