Case ID: f_32/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Benedict, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith v. Harpending and another.
    
      (Circuit Court, E. D. New York.
    
    November 4, 1887.)
    On Motion to .Remand.
    
      G. M. Harwood, for plaintiff.
    
      Itobt. G. Ingersoll and Hold. II. Griffin, for defendants.
   Benedict, J.

This ease comes up before the court upon a motion to remand. The facts bearing upon the question of removal are similar to the facts slated by this court in deciding the case of Mary Beartloston against tho same defendants, (ante, 644.) The bill in this case differs from the bill in that case, but in this case, as in that, the state court has, after hearing the parties, decided that the bill does not disclose a separate controversy as to the defendant Alley. The reasons for remanding the case stated in the case of Mary Beadleston are applicable here, and the same result must follow.

The motion to remand is granted.