, 1875-10-29
Judge Hlodgctt Decides a Silo
Issue In the Onge Case.
The City Win1, and tho Matter Goes
Back 10 the Superior Court.
Decisions Relative 10 Tabular Lantern!
an,i Yra,lc, Marks.
Another Day Of Allidavits and Talking
About Hooloy's Business.
Record Of judgments and New Suiis...Miscct.
laneons Mas.ers.
Wllnt the Supreme Court Did.
THE CaG: CASE.

/
| THE GAG: CASE.
rEcls1ox IN FAVOR or THE CRY.
| Judge l.o1s,tt yesterday desc1oi number
Of important opinions. The principal Of tllcso
| VIVA tho case OF the City of Chicago against
David 4. Gage, In Which tho judge decided In
fuvor OF tho city. md remandcd tho ca',so to tho
State Coust. In delivering the opinion, His
Honor gavo history OF tue case, which ID bEiof-
! ly as folio rs:
TN tho 21th Of September, 1879. Gage executed md
Of proissr Il rst 1 he es :. ~ H.
sgret ,nt, 10 authorized tho Trustee undsr tho di.
ses.i@n o. ths 'tsoiles, after period OF night
MdhtAe Aal clipped to take possession Of md control
from o Lo opped 70 the liquidation Of Its lndeh'el
e1rra Ion Of eight months, largo amount Of ,sos
iAdeGIotlnrss remstnfna unraid, the Comptroller
fused d. giving a. rcasou for such sefaa.i ibat
The deed did not aate tho aannt Of tho inlstcdncfs
The .proIer amount duo being ire. aseertapod
and docfrcd to be duo by court Of comp juria
sae edns M a, %is r. e By hs city p
ho smouat Of sif 0aRos n.ebodne.s was sso @ sosss
An accounting wa' thcsefote asked, and lccrno for
William T. Ayre', Of Alaoaaa Judgment creditor Of
Mr. Gage: a.llej to tho superior Court 10 be mads
granted. Ayrcs then filed ali a,,swer and cfoss-t,
sna asked IL have tho causa removed to the
TITLE! rs as. courts %nasr hs sst ot Garsss
ordered III removed to the Unoi States Courts
motion WIS Ihen inAdo by thscty to rcnAnd tho suit
back to tue Superior Court for cause appearing tile
Judge l,oizolt said Doc* there appear enough on
Tho q the reco,d 10 Justify tba Court ia Aotna
turs,llct!ou Of this casa. Tie nth section Of Ito
att Of March ., Isis eighteenth btxtutcs At Largo,
5 Csa1 o. Tt q ~ st q Y
Circuit Court u lhe United tates, shall appear
thu ta.faton of the eald Circuit Court my limo
+ti11x-1 D. Hn.T
That such ant DOES not really md substantially tnvulve
dispute or controversy properly within the jurltl!e-
s sa teca 81 70 a
3oine' either plaintiffs detoadanss. for tho pur
Of p ~ nbT
therein, but aha dlsnisa the AMT I'D 1t 10 tie
G"1s' from wdeh Was Fea'ov0a' =. justice may re-
% IT,. ns.t 4. 9as.ti2n which s,sss.!s ',sn to every
To mina IN da;sis ,Hn tha question T. Between
Tse orna h' as %.s broar n !, shs
cny of cL;aeo 70 determine The suoant of tndebtol
o az o aass aa sd to s
Is Taylor. for t1st psrro.s. ID liz snaSsr, IL hss
e!.s, siage denied .ny ,ndsatedne.. beween himself
Of tbis nauiry to investigate thc sround upon which
Gage bssc*! .bat denial; Il Il saleien for tile psr
s III S IT, to :s III: :: o ~ II. In;
4: f. sss;,sve':S ,$ = ;:ss:
ihsrc va, in fat, au lades!edasts and tho aaonnt
thereof. any. from Gage to tho city. Tho defen-
auswce aud cross.bti, but simply mafes himself .
rarty to thai which arcady existed, alleging perhaps
r. ,o e1 !u1 @ hoa y
changing m any degrce tho Issue III tbs case or the
harater Of he controversy. Tue main question sslli
fore Ayrna cAno Into the case Does Gage the city
anything which might 10 satisfied out Of ths pro-
e st sd IN he
bill. This lasuR 10, tho controversy inaugarated In
fhs s - simply one set*ee1 citizens q sh!s sato
Ia tue result Of that controverzy BECAUSE IL termi
nat n favor Of Gage. 1t leave, the property held
dobt. nut that does not, In any desree ny estima
tiou, involve a controversy bttwban tho city aud
Ayrss ip tho original suit
A. was in.!natod by Tho learned Circuit Judge Of
tis Circuit In tbs case Of osg ,d agiust tho Chicago,
D.n.ille viAeennes 1lailroad copany. tuo ttatSt.
OF Mach g. 1875 clearly cuuetpntpA the removal OF
t!o whoie suit from tie State TO tho Federal Court.
and not Of such fragment Or part thereof
between two morc OF the defend. n.s-and wo must
took uo tho nature Of the original controversy whit
nas y. sbeet matter Of tho suit. to setso tue quea-
M # s1,ofy e M se ay se't 1ss
and interest Of citizens Ut different States, but, ale4s
tho original which tho suit Is brought
tetermiuu 10 between citizens Of different Btatcs OF
detion It would hardly aeem that Congress intended
10 pfoFio for The removal Hereof inasuuth a. tue
part Or hranch lnyelynya conttoycesy between clt-
zenB At different Satcs,
Applying these suggestions to tho case under con.
Bherltl0n 1t would that the controversy Al pre-
aentcd by the tnHes mud pe1dtugs ts to whether or
not GAEe owes tho city anything which should to
paid out Of this tEuht fund. Thut bein determined,
IL feternnol g4!nst the city, tic defendant, A,Fes
my have standing In Court to claim h!s pay out OF
tho trlst property but not Until tnea. Soswahstand-
lug Ayres' Interpolation into this suit the real ques
tons tti! stand al issue between tho city Aud lsge,
and Aysca has rghts ouly 10 may bo subrogaed 10
thoEc Of QaEo,
It nowhere inim,ted IN th!a thst there Is any
colnaon between (ago and tue city, that tbs cty
sst is not prosecuted IN eut!re good faith. II It lad
ncen made to unpe.r that Gage ha1 given the trust
deed tO Taylor fur tho pnraHe OF defraad'ng Ayrcs
or that thu couse,ance not bonn ale the parties
10 the controversy .2ht be changed aud Ayes OF ny
creditor Of 1!ae might bo tln rnal party 10 the
nn!hng Of tbs kind ih this case.
II thcrefoss seeas clear to me, that upon the facts
tIown In sht record, this IL not such cs4s IA wus
in,cudod 10 BE- removed from the tate to the Federal
Courts.
An appeal to tho Supreme Court WIZ prayed for and
granted.