Gelston v. Johnson
Gelston v. Johnson
Opinion of the Court
— That Judge Talmadge has given an opinion that Powles-Hook is in the State of New-York, forms no,solid ground for the indulgence of this Court; he had no objection, however, to the cause being removed, if by law it might be done.
Mr. Williamson said, that it was a simple trespass; that it no way appeared that the controversy would involve a jurisdictional question; nor did be believe it would.
[*] Mr. Grffith:-The statute requiring the application to be made on the appearance of the defendant, is merely directory; in all cases where a statute is directory only, the court will exercise a discretion; therefore, the court can, and he trusted it would exercise its discretion in favor of the right of the defendant, by receiving the application nunc pro tunc.
— Thought it reasonable to allow the motion.
Could not concur with his brethren. The Constitution and laws of the United States out of the case, the plaintiff had a right to have his cause tried in this Court. By the Constitution of the United States, and statutes made in conformity thereto, the defendant has a right to remove a cause brought against him by a citizen of this State, into the Court of the United States, on his declaring such intention, and making affidavit of certain facts on his entering his appearance in this Court; this he has not done; and by his not doing it, he has waived that privilege; and the plaintiff has acquired a right to have his cause tried here
Motion allowed,
Contra 1 Peters C. C, Rep. 44
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.