The New York herald., 1869-09-30
SUPREME C0UnT-c'iAMBeaS
Railroad Observation-Disclosures Question Of
Law.
Before Judge Clerke.

= Before Judge Clerke.
Luther c. Ctailis Us The Central Branch Union
Pacific Railroad ConapanV.-Thls was an apprca-
ton on behalf Of the defendants to remove the
case from this court to the United States Circuit
Court for the Southern district Of New York. the
ground that the petitioner Is not citizen OF this
State ana that the company is o corporation EN-.
bodied ana created In the State OF Kansas. From
papers and statement OF counsel II appears that
the matter had been referred to q releree and no
COMPANY set up that the plaintiff is citizen Of New
York. while they are foreign corporation, and that
they have defence 70 the claim sought 10 be re-
covered against them under the la vi the United
States The facts OF the case are as foliowslt ap-
pears tnat tue p'entin negotiated The modification
u resolution OF the Board OF Directors OF the com.
pany. This treaty embraced the purchase OF lands
from the Indians 10 enable the company TO run their
road and the plantf obtained 150 acres for that
purpose Besides this 1t Is claimed that he procured
grant from the United States government OF 500 900
acres more, valued at s5,6370l1, and effected the
passage OF an act authorizing the issue OF bonds for
81, 100000, to and in the construction OF the road
This action OF the plalntif was subsequently ap.
proved by the Board OF Directors OF the company
and he now claims S6ooO0O as the value Of his ser.
vices.
Mr. Fullerton opposed the motion. lie said the
answer OF the defendant, on which the motion was
founded upon the treaties or laws OF the United
states. 1t was not claimed or pretended In any OF
the papers before the Court, that the deIenda is
corporation organized by or under law Of the
United States. There was only one defendant in
the action TO wit, the Central Branch of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company He, therefore, contended
that this motion could not be made under section
twelve OF the judiciary act OF 17s9 because that act
required such q motion 10 be made lat the time Of
entering his appearance in said State Court.r The
motion could not be made under the act of July
1865, because that act provides for the motion only
in case IN which "a citizen OF the State In which
the suit brought s shall be defendant together
with the citizen OF another State codefepdant.n
Folrteenth United states Statute at Large,
page 300.) Mr.. Fullerton also cited the
acts OF July 27, 1868, and OF March 2 1861 to show
that the defendant had no status In a court on tas
motion ne also contended furthermore, that as
the motion was not made before tIal of the action
IL was now too late. He said 1t was claimed that the
individuals comprising the company were, by con-
clusion OF law, presumed to be citizens OF the state
creating the corporation and there were undoubt-
edy decisions 10 that effect But to tnat he replied
that the constitution recognizes no such princple
and that under the constitution, to entlte the case
TO be- removed, II shorlq appear TO the satisfact
OF the Court as matter OF fact, and not as concu
sion OF law, that tue controversy In question shall be
"between citizens or different SLatcs;r and that pro.
vision OF the constitution could not be evaded either
by judicial or state legislation The question OF cit
izensnip OF the contendng parties was one OF Iact
aud not or legal inference.
Judge Porter having replied on behalf OF the de-
fendant, the Judge took the papers and reserved
his decision.