New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-16
ERIE PACIFIC LITIGATION.
DEFEAT FOR JAMES FISK, JR.-JUDGE MEL
sons DECISION AGAINST THE JURISDICTION
OF THE STATE COURTS.

DEFEAT FOR JAMES FISK, JR-JUDGE MEL
SONS DECISION AGAINST THE JURISDICTION
OF THE STATE COURTS.
In the United States Circuit Court, yester-
day. in the case of James Fisk jr against the Union
Pacific Railroad Justice Nelson of the Supreme Court OF
the United States gave dee in favor OF the defend
ants ON all points, dissolying the plahtlis
Injunction, and denying his motion to re-
mand the to the State Courts
This is the suit in which the remarkable orders and re-
celvershps and the breaking into the offices and safes
Of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, more than
year ago. attracted much notice. These orders and
violent proceedings decided by Judge Nelson OF
the United states Supreme Court as they have been by
Judge BatchOrd, to have been as illegal as they were
extraordinary The defendants Immediately after It's
commencement took steps under an act Of Congress o.
remove the from the state Courts to the United
states Court. Judge Barnard refused To recognize the
removal and continued to grant niunctionS, ana ap,
pointed his receiver after the defendants had completed
The defendants then applied 10 Judge Nelson 10 yacae
Judge Barnards first injunction when ne GRANTED WIZ" T
the suit was begun, ana before II Na' Itmo,Su ~ ~
subsequent orders and inuucons N ne STATE COnrt Ie
defendants claimed void and without Jurisdiction
The plaintiffs counsel at the same he lhale count.I
motion to Judge Nelson to remand the cause TO te STATE
S WnH $50 beforp Judges Nelson and Batc.
ford, by David Dudley Field aud E W. StouYht3l,
samuel J. Tidcn and James Emott with whom Clarence
A. seward associated. for the Union Pachc lal-
road Company, aud the other defendants Judge Nelson
prevented by sickness from examining the case
sooner. The following il the decision
state by complainant the Union Pacific Railroad Company
the Cndt aoJnsI 81 A l l s ~ u 4b arec date
given nor the time when i va. served np99 the Yteze
The o9 Face R5a sr IST d1 yo IT mona. m e.
Ietgn 60 the sou,i to Ie4PT I Bti SSt nsr an act
intel u state r,. sI ' the 3 of r 6a The act provide. that any
s1 I'd under M Of he Jnl states aai Which .uit law
or IN sau ti; been @ o s s g i for S Ss or az
egel ab. Of saeh opoI-tSn OF i ny t IN & nav h. pn
tho tircutY -fr
stating that tlcy defense arising under by virtue Of the Con
tuition Of tie Unitei s'aies, or any ue5y OF law Of
end,r fo3 entering IN such court on the ar.i dag
session copies Of a proee,, Ialg Se ana dong ,an ol..
o3l ~ iS5 And sI he ihersaroa duty Court %
aept e security ana proceed no gf'hei 20 ne t Eng ne
D oousA o1 g fs State enmd in al resp, 2 substantially the
Some question Ia, been made on tie part learned counsel for the
Sg az ses % OF The on Paesc Railroad compln or of ~
on T. %f%6e ld o an a nc eil az s c 6a g
Of has led 20 dfreat conclusion If had been Other
eafat, OF the benefit act; lad appeared aarma
sty Tie defendants have s7erre their petition hat the suit
had brought against for such Of and question
to upon the allegation must be settled at the trial ami not
Te ti section Of the Ac, Of March 1893 ar St. 500 pro-
yes suit w brought IN state Court against IN
S Se5 nS % lDS eRsS h 'ls' , Of he & safes OF uS color o
Circuit Court Of the United states 'iung h he naili. OF
verifying the petition &C. and tue "a e Al be elterl On le
upon ne pl,s " % gr t ReTease la Of th Govern ent
or Oh acoI q an , n he doSte however II no such G
appeared the declaration bat which VS. iof IA as1 an
stated The act Otherwise the te oul always
ocoo T. examine this third Deunis;rawn
against Draper Bs niori Jo-Jt ana refer TO "a. c io our
n n, tbe psres claiming the Git removal al Of them
o To- on M tho or they apply they
re viii process otherwise hrou into Coai In our Judgment
they ueel no, ali join At the me Of presenting ihe puon Da
each or as m'ag I, s' 5s s the u e, Of ths act We
10 we Nth and can work no prejudice to either
is te time and place Of the presenting Of the
petition this The act Prc'eroer no such practice sad
under al the previous statutes pr,ydn Tor rgmoy No
be read before The state Court IN opposition Inc PPS
ton on n, Pti'1 rs e. iI a CONFORM to NE re9unents Of
h W a o Of opinion that when one or more Il
e;ed g moys i that o competent IN r The State court 1 s
proceedings IN the cause on 'n.n 70 Ie a. ~ bs
present Gaze be defendant and considerable intervals Of time
e , sa lf s AZ Inert TAX he Necessary steps
be useless waste Of time expense paie, concerned
proceed the litigation until The question OF was % &
may the litigation BESIDE those under the
Sfi 81 sSD5 he eausS from the aeoh This
Rnas ys ss IN G0s .. Of ae ca ever since Noting
added thu eoneayenes' u The reasoning 81
to si.haw Jurisdiction the Federal Courts almost
drawn and clause relating sahjee Of vital i'm
poaee 70 The ,nd ePsa na sI mT Thee
ever pa of which depends Constitution, laws and treaties
hell Wh, 49, 2O).
For the that the joining OF teiendants
within the limitation prescribed BY the act win those VINO
withdraw the from the Jurseon OF
admitted the privilege extended 10 the
right under the Constitution and laws e cd
States would every instance he defeated ndee any
such principle Of these OF removal depending
subject and INTENDED 10 tie inter
and laws Of the United states at the
judiciary would be futile aud worthless
which provided for the removal Of suits against an
officer other for arts done under the REV
readily eydel by joining persons Win
tes or are rrAly complete remedy behalf Of the plain
a they g,rdeJ subordinate and incidental TO the principal
which the Of Congress has ntefpoed The
this the right Of the parties TO have thcr
Of the United states tined Ia the
Fieral the time the remedy the PLAN
PETITION State Court by all the defendants not
Included the trst the 9Th March, 1907
order entered for the removal
full With the terms OF The
objected that the Judge before whom the petition presented
Of Bat the Eiayt before me show
place before Supreme Court IL Also APP
Batci Of the alienation mandamus
b defendants proceeding Why
should
IN The and therefore the would be useless
conformity this opinion III Judge
BIsthfarl the result and will also enter order the
defendants before dissolve the Injunction OF july H.
BlATcuYoRD IL the views Of Mr. Joshee Nelson and In
the result that the motion the plaintiff remand the cause to the
State must be denied.
pI 4, IN