Allen v. Ryerson
Opinion of the Court
1. The motion to remand is made upon three grounds. The first ground is that the petition for the removal, upon which the state court acted, was not verified. The removal was applied for and ordered under the act of July 27, 1866. This act does not, in terms, require the petition to be verified (see Sweeney v. Coffin, [Case No. 13,686;]) and we do not think the cause should, for this reason, be remanded. The plaintiff is not concluded, by-the petition for removal, as to the citizenship of the defendant Ryerson, but may contest that matter in this court, by a plea in the nature of a plea in abatement.
2. The substantial controversy, as disclosed in the plaintiff’s bill and in the pleadings, is one between him and the defendant Ry-erson. The plaintiff is a citizen of Iowa, and Ryerson is a citizen of Illinois. Judging of the case as made by the pleadings, we think there can be a final determination of the
3.It is our opinion, that where-a case is, made for the removal of a cause under the act of July 27, 1866, the petitioner for removal is not obliged to make an affidavit of the existence of prejudice or local prejudice, such as is required in applications under the act of March 2, 1867. Motion denied.
Concurring Opinion
concurs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.