Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GAGE v. CARRAHER, 1880 — 154 U.S. 656 · caselaw · US
General
GAGE v. CARRAHER
154 U.S. 65625 L. Ed. 989·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GAGE v. CARRAHER.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 243.
Submitted April 6, 1880.
Decided April 12, 1880.
Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, followed.
Mr. Henry D. Beam for appellant.
Mr. James E. Munroe and Mr. W. C. Goudy for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The order remanding this cause to the state court is affirmed qn the authority of Meyer v. Construction Co., 100 U. S. 457. • Carraher occupies one side of the controversy about which the suit is brought, that is to say, the title to the property in question* and Portia Gage, Henry H. Gage and John Forsythe the other. Henry H. Gage and Forsythe are citizens of the same State with Carraher. There is no controversy in the suit which is wholly between citizens of different States and which can be fully determined as between them. Affirmed.