U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1933

Arthur v. Edmunds

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 15, 1933 · Sibley

66 F.2d 21; 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2527 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

James A. Dixon, of Miami, Fla., for appellants., Henry K. Gibson and Bart A. Riley, both of Miami, Fla., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Company (5th Cir. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 unadjndieated. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.