Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ARTHUR et al. v. EDMUNDS et al.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

A bill in equity was removed to the District Court of the United States by some of the defendants therein on the ground of a separable controversy. The other defendants, denying the existence of such a controversy and the jurisdiction of the District Court, moved to remand the case to the state court. The judge in a written opinion expressed views indicating that he thought the movants for remand had no rights in the controversy, but the only judgment rendered was one denying the motion to remand. The movants appeal, contending that the judgment is final as to them. Not so. They are still parties, and their rights stand unadjudicated. The refusal to remand is not a final and therefore not an appealable order. Bender v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U.S. 502, 13 S. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537; Patten v. Cilley (C.C.A.) 50 F. 337.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ARTHUR v. EDMUNDS
(Jun 15, 1933)