, 1875-04-05
RAILROAD NEWS
pAMVtLLE q VlNCEhhEs.

pANvlLLE 4 VlNcENNEs.
Judge Drummond gnvc Ills opinion Saturday
In tho case Of 0ugood rs. Tho Chicago. Danyillo
l. ytncounos Railroad Company, on tho motion
10 dismiss for want Of Jurisdiction.
Stephen oagood filed bill Against tho Com
pany Ia rhe VIII County Circuit Court, asking
for Neoeivar, aud other rclief. An injunction
was issued aud neueivars arpolnted without
notice. Subsequently, \ motion was made
to remove tho cause TO- tho Fede1al Court.
and refused. Under tho lato act Of Congress
enlarglng tho Jurisdiction OF tho Federal Courts,
another more Was made by filing = petition IN
tho State Court, though in Yacatlon, and
transcript Of The recor3 WAS then taken to tho
Federal Court on tho 24sl OF March. fe"
days ngo motion 1As ,nntls to tiam!sb, On tho
ground that tho Federal Court had no turlsalo-
lion. ard argued for tno days.
Judge Drnmmond, 10 giving hla opinion yes
torday, aad thns tho Intention Of Congress- seona,
tho previouA acts, and At the aamo time extend
somewhat the Jurisdiction. The Court had ju-
rBlictfon In hnitB batwacn tue citizens Or dl1or-
ont States without regard to sl,a fact waetLer Or
not QUO Of tho partles was citizen of tie eLato
whore tho suit was brought.
":rhls Is tho frat time that Congsess han over
authorized defendant, citizen OF tho State
where tho suit IL brought, to scmove the case
!. cano where there arc Beyeral defendants: some
of whom hayo not joined In tho petition Tor 70.
noyAl, the question Ia Wlother tho controversy
wholly betweeu tho plAlnln and those who
have ret.houed for removal, And cru hp fully
teserminoo a. between them.
"The ooatroyersy In this case Is, g between
theso parties, whether tho bonds sefor1eI to IN
tao bill arc valid dobss againet tho Ooinpany and
ths mortgages can DO foreo!oaod eod tho claim
enforced agalust tho Company aud Whothor tho
otcors nf flo Company hAye heen guilty Of, any
o. the breaches Of trust alleged hEatnht them.
The ofliceru named ~ defendants, and the Rail
resd Company, would sos1n 70 he PARTED whose
flEY determined rs bofng controversy wholly
htkweou them, The other partles wLo hare
tdped in tho petition for renoTAi are mora truh~
tots. Il III : con.roye1by wholly bstwcon citizens
oldi1erent 8tstca.
sTAe fact tbht thete are various Judgment
1!8,ts and iiana Of tho bonahoido1t, or that
crua-bilt haa beon sllsd, cannot atfcct tho power
Of tho tau,ovA1.-sheir rghta remaining un-
clspged. Tho difficulty arising from tho poasoa-
pannt than real"
was not fllsd Il tho torn 81 which tho cause
couu bo first tried wna not valid; II could DO
alcd before tho torn, and IL otter, WAS
dcAinbla to remove oRuaa Immediately
aite, its commencement. Ihe stAtute did
NOT require tho Judge to approve thu bond.
aud { was cloAIlJ the object 70 allow removal
wlth,ut tho aid Of tho state Court. Nor did tbs
law alrect the Federal Court to remand the cause
becapss OF soma irregufhrity 10 any Of tue Atepa
taken to procure tho removal. Tie purpose OF
the NJ obviously Was, Il the record was Alel In
| the Nde1ai Court nnaer tho law. md the Court
could 500 that It had Jurisdiction Of the case,
shat u should retain Ii, Notwithstanding there
The notion to dismiss would therefore be re-
! mQVe4.