US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

DEMING V. CARLISLE PACKING CO., 226 U. S. 102 (1912)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 226 U. S. 102 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U.S. 102 (1912)

Deming v. Carlisle Packing Company

No. 511

Submitted November 4, 1912

Decided December 2, 1912

226 U.S. 102


Even though the record may present in form a federal question, the writ of error will be dismissed if it plainly appear that the federal question is so unsubstantial and devoid of merit as to be frivolous.

In this case, the only federal question was based on the refusal of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 226 U. S. 103

the state court to remove the cause as to the nonresident defendants on the ground of fraudulent joinder of the resident defendant, and is frivolous as shown by the fact that the trial court refused to nonsuit as to the resident defendant, and there was a verdict against all.

Where the case is not removable before trial, plaintiff has the right to have the issues of fact and law raised determined in the state court having jurisdiction, and the power of the state court to so determine cannot be destroyed by defendants' claim that, if the evidence had been rightly weighed, the decision would have been different.

Where the state court has jurisdiction, the federal court cannot deny the state court the right to exercise it.

The unsubstantial and frivolous character of the only federal question presented in this case embraces the conclusion that the writ was prosecuted for delay.

The power which this Court can exercise under one of its own rules depends upon the statute on which the rule is based.

Under Rule 23, which is based on § 1010, Rev.Stat., this Court has the same power to award damages for delay where the writ of error is dismissed as where there is judgment of affirmance, and in this case, five percent damages are imposed in addition to costs.

Writ of error to review 62 Wash. 455 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court of writs of error to state courts and the power of this Court to award damages for delay where the writ of error is dismissed, are stated in the opinion.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™