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.
BIRDSEYE v. SCHAEFFER, 1891 — 140 U.S. 117 · caselaw · US
General
BIRDSEYE v. SCHAEFFER
140 U.S. 11735 L. Ed. 402·Supreme Court of the United States·1891
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
BIRDSEYE v. SCHAEFFER.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
No. 920.
Submitted April 20, 1891.
Decided April 27, 1891.
It is again decided that an order remanding a cause from a Circuit Court' of the United States to the state court from which it was removed, is not a final judgment or decree which this court has jurisdiction to review.
This cause was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas prior to the passage' of the act of March 3, 1887, providing that no appeal or writ of error from the decision of the Circuit Court remanding a .cause to a state court from which it had been removed, should be allowed. The order remanding the cause to the state court from which it had been removed was made subsequent to that act, but prior to' the act of February 25, 1889; the writ of error was allowed on the 7th of June, a.d. 1889, subsequent to the act of February 25, 1889.
A motion was made to dismiss the writ on the grounds: (1) That there was no jurisdiction to issue the same and no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the record filed herein; (2) Because the judgment of the Circuit Court complained of, remanding the cause to the District Court of Nueces County, Texas, from which it had been removed for trial, was not a final judgment and cannot be reviewed by this court.
Mr. Philip B. Thompson and Mr. J. M. Vale for the'motion.
Mr. Bethel Coopwood and Mr.. John Hancock opposing.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The writ of error is dismissed upon the authority of Gurnee v. Patrick County, 137 U. S. 141; Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Thouron, 131 U. S. 45.
Dismissed.