Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1882-04-23
IMPORTANT DECISION.
judge Howard Denies the Application Of the
Southern Pacific Railway to have the Tax
Suits Removed to the Federal Courts.
THE HoPLE OF THE STATE
r CALIFORNIA

e CALIFORNIA
VS.,
THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD.
This Is q suit by the people
against the railroad for the recov
cry OF $31, 479.5S for Delinquent
taxes assessed for the year 1s50-Sl
with 5 per cent. for non-paymenl
and costs OF court.
The defendant filed an answer
and petition and moved to remove
the cause to the Circuit Court Of
the United States, on grounds here.
after stated:
The PEOPLE, ETC i
S. p. r. r Co.
The following is the entry In tb G
minutes of the CLERK of the Courl
"Attorney for defendants moves
the Court to approve the bond filed
in this case as to the sufficiency OF
the sureties, the amount and form.
To which PLAINTIFF attorneys
object on the ground that this case
under the law cannot be transferred
to the United States Court, and
such being the case the Court has
no jurisdiction to pass on the bond.
Defendants attorneys offer in
case the bond Is objected to by the
Court for insufficiency, or form, or
amount of sureties, to file a new
bond in such form and in such
amount and with such sureties as
may be satisfactory to the Court.
Submitted and taken under adj.
visement.
It will be seen that the motion
IN this Case Is not in form for a
transfer of the case to tue Federal
Court, but for the approval OF the
bond as to form and amount OF the
security.
Ii the motion were to transfer I
should not hesitate TO approve the
bond as to form and security; but
[ think it clear the Court can only
I'appr0ve Of the boud rs an incident
Of the application To transfer. IN q
proper Case for removal under the
| act OF Congress, and as that is not
the order demanded l decline TO
approve the bond, on the ground of
u want OF Jurisdiction to approve.
The mere presentation Of q petition
and bond does not make case for
removal to the United States Court.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey,
in the recent case OF the National
Union Bank VS. Dodge, IL Reporter
64l, IL Vroom, held: "If the cause
be one of which the Federal Court
had not jurisdiction under the Act
Of Congress, or the proceedings to
remove IL are not in compliance
with the requirements of the Stat
ute the State Court retains its juris-
diction over the suit notwithstand.
ing q petition and bond be filed for
| its removal"
In the late case OF Myer vs.. Con-
struction Company, the Supreme
Court of the United States said:
1--WE fully recognize the principle
heretofore asserted in many cases,
that the State Court is not re-
CURED to let go its jurisdiction un-
til a case Is made, which upon its
face, shows that the petitioner can
remove the case as Of matter of
right
The petition must, therefore,
| show on its face competent pay les
aud subject matter of which the
Federal Court would have jurls-
diction.
The petition in this cAee for re-
moval shows that both plsintifl
and defendants are citizens of the
State of California.
The answer which is claimed by
the petition for removal to be made
q part of it both as to the state
ment ami affidavit, alleges, "De.
PENDANT, a corporation existing un-
der the laws of the United States
and Of the State of California, as
will hereafter more fully appear.
that the principal place of bust
ness of defendant now is, aud for
many years past has been, in the
city o; San Francisco, State of
California, that great number OF
its stockholders now are aid ever
have been citizens Of the United
| States, aud residents of said State
Of California, while others of its
stockholders now are and ever
have been. citizens of the United
States and residents of States
other than the state Of Culifor.
MAJ
1t il held by the Supreme
Court of the United States In tne
Louisville, Cincinnati aud Charles
ton Railroad Company VS.. Liston,
2 Howard, 497, that: IA corpora.
ton created by the laws of State,
and having its place Of business
within that State, must, for the
purposes pi suit, be regarded as a
citizen within the meaning of the
Constitution giving Jurisdiction
founded upon citizenship"
Tnis decision was re-affirmed by
that Court in 1858, in the case
of Cowles vs.. Mercer county, 7tt
Wallace 118, and has been regard.
I'd as settled law in all Courts evel
since.
| The petition for removal mus
aliege that all the defendants unit
Ing in the petition are of differ.
ent citizenship from the plaintiff
IL Reporter 423, Smith vs.. Horton
This is case IN which all tht
defendants ale indispensable par.
ties under the act of 1875, and can
not be removed Blake vs.. Nc
Kim, IL Reporter 727. United
States Circuit Court; Harlan, J.
! The case can only be regarded al
an application to remove a suit be
tween resident citizens of tn,
same State.
1t is claimed that this case shoul,
be removed to the U. s. Circuit
Court, because the defendant is
corporation chartered by Congress
is an instrument of the fedora
government. and therefore exemp
from taxation by the State.
1t does not appear that the de
, PENDANT was Incorporated by al
Act OF Congress. The various Act