Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1868-08-21
gVrEeTCBAL DECISION.

day, in the case Of the Alexandria and Wash
ineton Railroad Company and Mayor and Com
mon Council of Washington city vs.. the Wash
ippton, Alexandria and Georgetown Railroad
Company, DAWSON, Hay, Coleman and others,
upon the application OF Charles K. Coleman
and others, defendants, for a removal OF this
cause to the Circuit Court OF the United States,
Judge Thomas delivered the following opinion
By article Sd, section I'd, of the Constitution OF lhc
United States, it is declared that the judicial power
shall extend to cases between citizens Oh olHercn'
States; and by the Judiciary Act, passed September
1885, it is provided: If 4 suit be commenced in any
State Court by citizen Of the State in which the
suit is brought, against citizen OF another State;
and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value
of $780, the Defendant may, at the time Of enter
ing his appearance in such State Court, file pctl-
ton for the removal Of the cause for trial into the
next Circuit Court Of the United States, and 1t snail
be the duty Of the State Court upon the party pc
titioning complying with the provisions OF the act,
to proceed no further.
Under this act it has been settled that suit can
not be removed when part OF the plaintiffs or de-
PENDANTS are citizens of the State where the suit IS
brought, and Of some other State, Mclean 5G3,
and in order TO remove q cause from the State TO
the United States Court, all the defendants must
ioin in the petition for the removal, = Sum. 39
This right Of removal is then an Individual per-
sonal right which must be exercised by each ind-
vdual party, and each one must assert the r9ht lof
himself.
Thus the law remained under the construction
given by the Courts until July 1885, when the Con-
gross of the United States by act Of that date
provided, that if in any suit already commcnced or
that may hereafter be commenced, i'll any state
court, by citizen of the State III which the SUIT IS
brought against citizen OF another State, cltlZen
of the State in which suit is brought is shall be-
Jofop nd thn cftit 20 far q
defendant, who is the citizen Of State other than
that in which the suit is brought, if the suit IS
onc in which there can be final determination OF
the controversy so far Us it concerns him, without
the presence Of the other defendants Us parties III
the cause, then he may at any time before the trla
or final hearing Of the cause, file petition for the
removal Of the cause, against him, into the Cir
cult Court Of the United States.
By this act the right to the removal Of the cause
from the State Court is enlarged TO embrace cases
then pending, or which might thereafter be brought
and the time extended to any period prior to the
final hearing Of the case as TO the defendant seeking
the removal, and not necessarily embracing the
other defendants, but with the condition, however,
that there be final determination OF the con-
troycrsy so far as concerns him, without the pre-
sencc Of the other defendants In other words That
the suit be proceeded in as separate and lndc-
pendent proceeding TO which the others arc not ne
ccsSary parties.
This act of July 1866, was amended by an act
passed March Cd, 1867 and provides, that where 4
suit is now pending or may be hereafter brought in
apy State court between u citizen Of the State in
which the suit is brought and 4 citizen of another
State such citizen of another State whether nc DC
plaintiff or defendant, if Inc will make and file an
affidavit in such State court that he has reason TO-,
and does believe that from prejudice or local niu
cncc he will not be able to obtain Justice in such
State court may al any time before the final hear
inc or trial file q petition for removal, and it shall
be the duty of the State court to proceed further
The original defendants in this cause, prior TO the
passapc ofths act filed their petition for removal
of this cause which was oycrrucd by the court, and
now the defendants made, under the order Of the
court under the amended bill fled now file their
petition ACCOMPANIED by the necessary Affidavit
and ask for removal Of the case If this latter act
stood alone il may be HAT its terms arc sufficient
" comprehensive 10 include this application ;
but as one Fart Of statute is properly called in TO
help the construction Of another part and is y so
cxpoundcd to support and give effect II possible
to the whole, SO is the comparison OF one law win
other laws made by the same legislator, or upon the
same subject, or relating expressly TO the same
point enjoined for the same reason, and attended
with like advantages. It is therefore an establish
cd rule Of law that all acts IN port mdterta are 10 De
taken together al If they were one law, ana tHty
aIc uilcCIcu l" ~, c"llip"Feu III 'il r5 ,,1
ono sTstnTo o;,I ha;- ono ohinct in view and the
rn1o = 10 en;d nnn,l ,rIioc Ibnno, some Of the
stotntoe NOV, hoIc yroa nr orr not referred 10 in
Tho otbnrc 1,rT.srr;o zoo rO0 7G Grot g in which
Jndgo Moncnra ah11- n,2oninas this enhcct Of the