The New York herald., 1877-11-23

same issue. These Two interests we're pooled, and q
scheme was devised whereby those interests 70
be represented . foreclosure Of the road BY Mr.
Stone trustee, who It Is alleged was bound 10 pur-
chase the property OF the road on the foreclosure sale
hold for the benefit OF himself ana the plaintiffs
assgnor Tue plaintiff alleges that the defendant has
converted this property 70 his own use ana intends
prevent the plaintiff from acquiring any oeneAi from
this purchase that TO accomplish this object the
fendanl learning That paintn was about institute
suit IN New York, went 10 Iowa ana there begar
proceeding IN the courts OF that Sate with the object
0! getting judgment in rem. which would be plead
able in Of any action the painud or his
might orng elsewhere Tor an account OF she trust or
Junction against the Iowa suit An ex parte :n,unc-
ton has been granted ana Is still operative against
that SUIT
Under those circumstance as 10 alleged the deten.
danL who is . citizen o: New York. applies 70 remove
The cause to the United states Circuit Court under
the act OF 1876 which gives to either party right 70
remove q between citizens oil anerept states
the objections 70 the motion were urged upon She
Court vita great earnestness by Mr. Patterson who,
the psri OF the plaintiff, claimed thai .his motion
mere device TO get rid Of an injunction indirectly
which the defendant did not dare 10 Oh the
merits, and he contcnded among other things, Lhat
under the acI Of Congress OF 1875 the cause
removable Counsel admitted that II was within the
intent OF the act 70 remove Causes from tribunals
having mixed law and equity Jurisdiction, but he
tended thai the purpose act was 10 remove issues
thai might be Hepl alive Aid not 10 transfer causes
that die N transitu or merely 90 10 the United
States Court Tor sepulture he Claimed tha, by
Of the express prohibitions OF the Revised Stat
utes OF the United States the Circuit Court could not
grant nJupoons upon actions pending in State courts
that power did reside II State tribunals and
had recently been exercised 10 New York, ana the
General Term OF the Supreme Court nad affirmed the
doctrne that as prayer Tor permanent inj junction
Is the very gisI OF the whole OF painth's case
the United states courts could not grant temporary
functions OF that nature they doubtless would not feel
Inclined 10 uphold one granted by State tribunal; ;
thai reservation Of all interiocutory remedies
n the action In tho State court would be held
apply probably all such az the United States Court
had power and jurisdiction grant originally that
thcrs was section In the ac Of 1878 which gave very
strong color that view. The contention, therefore,
that the Federal Court could not give
the reliei demanded tor want OF jurisdiction TO
do 80, Il would appear that tho could
not DO removed. Counsel also contended that
the petition oil the defendant was detective,
In thai 1t failed recite the ursdctonal facts de-
manded BY tho statute Of lsIo and cited the case OF
Pechner vs. Phenix Insurance Company chapter New
YORK, recently affirmed by the Supreme Court OF the
United States in support ot that contention. Tho de-
ect was that peLllion did not show that tho par
ties residents OF different States when the suit
commenced Judge Lawrence reserved ms de-
cislon. ME y. +. Maroury appeared Tor tho motion
Mr. Edward Patterson opposed