New-York tribune., 1869-04-02
THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ISlBRoGLIo'
suIT AGAINST JAMES FISK, JR, FOR ALLEGED
TRESPAss. ...o,y \ hor,,e

The Union Pacific Railroad company. nave
commenced suit IN the T. g. Circuit Court against jas
Fi,k Jr for alleged trcspass FISK Is charged Win
and entering the close of the Company. eyct
me the Company erefro, holding possession thereof
and ssiIDs taking, and carrying away the goods ana
ehhtels of said Company and ostructng hndenng ani
thfcatening said COmpany's clerks and servants ana
preventing them from Sa grIst los. i'm
sopyenlcncc. and prejudice. TO said companys damage
OF 81 10000 T/.I nI fu ..|- H"
UNITED STATEs CIRCUIT CotRT-coNcLUSIoN
oF THR ARGUMENT or THE QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION AND THE ORDER FOR STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS.
The argument in this case on the questions
Of Jurisdiction and the power and proprey Of granting
an order staying proceedings In the state Courts was re-
sunied YESTERDAY bofore Judgp Blatchford Mr. David
Dudley Field, behalf ~ the pnintln Mr. Fisk, feca'
nated the facts that had transpired the from
L. aud claimed that tho Credit Mobier
had stripped the RalfGd Company OF ts most valuable
noperty aud PRIVILEGES tho great dctrimont Of certain
et,ckhoide.- ~ whom Mr. Fisk olaned the ught "a be
tor corporation wis created by United States every
question arising IN relation 70 u was uhier the
had not properly fled the first petition for removal 20
the Ditad States Circuit Court nor had the required
e5 Sse Gs,SS nj ,f S Ss % petition %a, soo
fr nothing claimed 90 have filed second one but u did
NOS appear ws. .s had sSsss Ss sneG Se socacd
81 ec 5 tSrS to hS Court or
tes having been accepted by that Court wherever The
cause legally there IL will be determined IN spite any
orders from court claiming superiority There was no
Jurisdiction In tho United States Circuit Court compel
Die remOy al Of that t0 stay proceedings IN H. The
case must be removed whole or not at all one de
fenant cannot case against tho VIII of another
dendant All the defcndan the present oase do not
ion in petition for removal 10 Was not ayerrod by
that they members OF the corporation at
die time OF the of the suit some OF these
attendants and could not be stockholders In the
corporation aud not Therefore, members OF IT. THIS
was suit against the railroad company, hut against
It's despoier the Credit MOber and Was brought for the
real interests Of the railroad company aud Incidentally,
for the interest OF Mr. Fisk rgntful stakeholder
Mr. Samuel j. Tden, behalf OF the defendants. said
Mr. fsk simply offered TO pay-had not paid-a certain
amount Of money certain amount Of stock In the
opp Of himself (Mr. Tllden) the amount per share
dered-not padwas not the full amount required by
Judge RoseSranss order OF removal was now ON
the files OF the u s. Circuit Court and could not TO
called by action Of the Supreme Court Of the State OF
New.Yofk The other side wanted 10 have that order
treated nuty, yet that order was pold Jdee eyi-
dence OF abdcaton Of Jurisdiction over the case by
the state Court and conld not resume Jurisdiction
without the case beng romanded back by the Court to
which the state Court by itsown action had removed ~
The ipresent was arising under tho laws OF the
United states and the question Of the citizenship OF the
parties OF no account whatever u ths sul the ma
lure OF the case everything the character of parties
nothing No consent OF Of the parties was necessary
fol the removal OF such defendant could not be
deprived his remedy in such because Of the non
consent 10 removal Of codefendant In this Il had
his consent TO a removal Whether the defen-
dants had fulfilled the bond given for removal
Jurisdiction; I;'" the bond could bo prosecuted.
II the state Court thought the bond was good It was
United states this district decided that II has urisdc
ton OF this the State Court would and ought to sub
eide finally the question OF jurisdction and the Court
from which the case Is appealed must submit 20 ,s m
statute from enoinng proceedings which are legally
pending in state Courts but II It Is pretended that pro-
ceedings pending In United States Court tho latter
has the power the former on appeal from any OF
parties the case so as to peyen: from harasSns
Mr. Clarence A. Seward read several precedent which.
be contended favored the views taken by counsel for the
defepdans The Court then took the papers whch are
very youmBOus, reserylng Its decislOh ..