New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-03-09
THE COURTS.

THE CHICAGO AND ROCK ISLAND CONTROVERSY
In the United States Circuit Court tue case
OF Hatch aCt The Chicago Rock Island ana racine h-
road Company up on motion 70 ftlaig VIZ ctst
oon WAS 10 remand on ground OF want Of 1urIsdc
ton in the United states Court and also on he GROUND
OF wrong construction Of the statute OF July 81 1906
under which the removed TO the United states
Court. Counsel then read the statute ana contended
that ia provisions did not warrant the removal To Sc
cure removal il should be shown that the suit cOud he
eyercd without detnment TO either party TO it, that
the whole st could he determined in the other OF
tue two Courts Counsel then read various papers IN te
Use iii OF the important parts OF which have already
been published Counsel for defendants said there were
three acts under which the removal might take pace
that no formal order OF removal was necessary anu
simple refusal or abstinence OF the state court 70 -
terrain jurisdiction would be sufficient 1olDsed , U
plaintiff resumed saying that the eet OF 1907 t
plaed the removal Of whole suit ana tls Pc IN 80
had been severed by removal The dcenoa.ts nu inns
peared TO defend In the suit IN the 5tae thves OF
recognized It's Jurisdiction, and deprived telSSo 60
She benefit Of the act Of 1882 relating 20 Tho road
80 ctle NJ ts stote that he spent four-ffths OF his
time here that his business aud interests wiz cle INC
that he was an unmarried man. having no reaence es
where The Company had Office here and transacted
business here, making transfers Oh s.1vh; ~
OF 1850 contained the words sum or value III relaon 70
lie amount mn controversy $500 exclusive Of COSTS under
which amount removal could take pace, Whlie iho
value" This suit was not for sum exceeding $780,
exclusive OF costs and is therefore not one Tor removal
under the later acts. We claim II the suit Is served by
removal your Honor will not be able TO render any na
Judgment IN It, and IL will also prevent final action as 70
all the persons In the state court ana prey eht S vi
them from obtaining substantial Justice. An alien de
PENDANT should the night to an action as
against himself TO the United States Court, when there
other defendants In the action citizens Of the Saeh
which the removal is sought against whom the suit IN
sue state Court is continued and then have the oppOrtu
ny to escape Judgment against HIMSELF on the gfouhu
that the United States Court had no power 10 MAKE
final disposition of the corporation might Dy us
acts preclude itself from taking advantage OF the fght
10 remove cause It's acts might be OF such natnre rs
to admit citizenship i'm the State In which the removal Is
snugnt there technical necessity for the dc
PENDANTS appearing In the action In state court
aud when they do appear they par thelr HSnt
removal. The affirmative OF inc Hgntt 20
remove must taken by those seeking the removal aud
good and sufficient shown IN order TO secure re
uOval The application for removal must be made stimuli
aneOusly with the time required for the defendant 10
make his appearance In the case in the State Court
Counsel for the defendants denied that when they de
time granted 20 put in appearance had arrived Coun
col for plaintiffs cOntended that defendants counsel a
peared opposed the motion for discovery ana thus
submitted themselves to the Jurisdiction OF the state
be so construed TO give party the right
To remove n motion for injunction arising In a
controversy, when such removal would Improperly
sever action, and prevent parties TO II from securing
such final Judgment in the State Court as would give
them substantial justice. The suit Is not properly against
the Railroad Company but against its directors who
may in legal sense be the corporation put the sOch
holders are equity the real owners or the property OF
Company, and the suit Is against the directors as
trustees of the stockholders not trustees or tine corpora
ton The suit would have been brought III the haue OF
the corporation directors not in the eye OF
tho law the corporation The corporation is made De
fendRnt simply because those controlling II refused 10
bring suit We do not ask relief OF judgment that
this Court grant in favor against the company
The relief asked that these trustees may be restrained
doing injurious to the stockholders VINO repre-
the corporation These points discussed at
length and the argument did not close I'LL aDOutb CLOCK