Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-21
GOING TO DEEP WATER.
Work Begun on the Double Track Road at
Arkansas.

Arkansas.
srecial TO the Gazette.
ARKANSAS HARBoR, TEX, Nov. 3d.
One of the grandest commercial events
in the history of Texas took place here
to-day, when the Arkansas Hsrbor CITY
and Improvement company commenced
the building OF its double TRACK terminal
railway from this point to tn gulf. Chief
Engineer Nilsson of the San ntonio and
Arkansas rain ~ arrived u ferday with
his corps of surveyors and inemen, AMI
made his souh sngs oy the proposed
ton all the way h, tafhe eovernmen.
light house. ThuSheblan of reaching
aeep water will u fan easy one. a
transportation traia aded with teams.
machinery and ca q tft steamed into
the aew city last Ght land bright aud
curly this mornilk the WICK of construc-
ton of the ure sea h was begun.
piline, etc. Ave been ordal I'D and will
commence Ewing to-day or Ia morrow.
Every bod Tow comedies that tbs move
msn ss,irs the 0rnGn of
Texas coast and the new city of Arkansas
Harbor has already commenced to expe-
rience an activity which amounts to q
genuine boom. This is the first move
made in pursuance of the bill passed 10y
congress, and now that all the arrange
meuts have been completed the work
Will continue without cessation and as
rapidly men and money can make it
go until deep water is secured.
Following Is the decisions of the two
i, L
company was not made u party by the
plaintiff. 1t has not been called in war
rant. 1t shows liability on its part to
protect the defendant. 1t makes no
claim TO the revenues of the railway
property nor to its possessions. Its sole
interest in the case is to assert its lien
and the priority thereof. 1t has no in
terest in defeating plaintiffs demand
further than TO secure priority for itself.
| am, therefore, of the opinion that
the Farmers loan and trust company
interviewer in this case is manly an in
tervening plaintiff, and only in q very
limited way can be considered as an in
terVeniug defendant. Counsel are re
ierred on this point to Noble VS.. Myers,
IS Texas 2o0. In the present case l |
seriously doubt whether the Farmers loan |
and trust company can be considered u
defendant at all within the meaning of |
the third clause of the second section of |
the act OF 1883. 20 Statues at
Large, 1874. However this may |
be 1 am satisfied that in the present |
cause sought TO be removed there is no |
controversy wholly between citizens of
different states which can be fully de-
termed as between them, and to the
plaintiffs suit the defendant railway
is an accessory party to the
plaintiff = suit. The plaintiffs action |
is III the nature of a creditors bill and is
brought 10 establish their rights agnIns,
the railway company, as well as against
all lien holders and other
creditors. determination of their
rights as against the farme loan and
trust company is only small part of
their case. Separate defenseS do not
create separate controversies within the
of the removal act. For adju-
Indicated cases directly in poilt, see
Frlelity Company VS.. Huntington III
L. s. 2S0l, in Graves VS.. Corbin 1872
L. s. 81 Cases settling the PROPOSE
ton are collected and reviewed. The
motion TO remand Is granted.
l concure fully in the views expressed
by Judge Pardee in ordering the cause to
For two reasons the suit is
not removable under art of 1888. l.
The Farmers Loan and Trust company
" h;rh seeks the removal, occupies the
attitude of an intervening plaintiff. 1t
is the actor, the complaining party, the
plaintiff as TO the cause of action which
t seeks 10 en- force and cannot be held to
be within the meaning of the act. A de-
PENDANT tho a.one is accorded the right
20 remove by the terms of he law.
>. If i'll legal contem plation the
rust company could be con strued or held
% be a defendant, it would still be pre-
.lude'i from removing the cause on the
yrouni that there is not in the suit
wholly between citizens of
different states which could be fully
determined as between them to the
ull and final determination of the
Johnson s. Hansen and the
Interviewer, the Farmers loan and trust
company. The San Antonio and Aran-
'us Pass railway company is not only q
roper, but a necessary party. The
iebts claimed against the railway COM
,any by both johnson & Hansen
md the trust company are
he principal things and the
lens, but an incident, and in
rider TO adludge the existence OF the
lates and establish the validity of the
lens. The debtors presence before the
ecord is Indispensable. but when the
lebtor puts in appearance as the railway
company herein did upon the original
institution of the suit against 1t
re have directly presented con-
roversy not wholly between citi-
ems OF different states which
oLld be fully determined as between
hem upon the hypothesis that the trust
ompany could be considered as de-
eudant. The controversy is one be-
ween a citizen of Texas as plaintiff, and
citizen of Texas aud citizen of New
'ork as defendants, hence it follows the
uit Is not removable under the third
lause of section of the statue involved
y the Intervening trust company. l.
b. Maxey, judge concurriug.
Terrell Notes.
n 81 IN he Gaze.te :