The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-01
MOTION TO REMAND
COUNTIES SUIT AGAINST BOND COMPANY IN PROGRESS
Nearly All of Yesterday Consumed by Argument in Federal Court on Motion to Send Case
 Back to City Court.

Nearly all of yesterday was consumed by lawyers in the United States District Court in arguing a motion to remand the case of the County of Montgomery against J. J. Cochran. Treasurer and the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Mary land to the Montgomery City Court. from which Court 1t was transferred to the Federal Court several weeks ago.
 The argument on the motion to remand had not been concluded when Judge Thomas G. Jones. at 3 o'clock announced that his court would adjourn until 9:3O o'clock this morning.
 This case grew out of the failure of the banking house of Josiah Morris & O., of Montgomery, fin which bank J. J. Coch- ran as Treasurer of Montgomery Coun- ty. had on deposit about $12O.000. The bond of MT. Cochran was made by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Mary land. and this company was made CO., defendant with MT. Cochran in a suit brought by. the County to recover the amount of the Treasurer's bond.
 Some time ago tie action was trans ferred from the Montgomery City Court to the United States District Court on the ground set forth by the bond com pany that the machinery of the Mont gomery City Court was prejudiced. and that one of the parties to the suit was nonresident of Alabama.
 Representing Montgomery County, Cap- tain John G. Finley and Hon. Jesse Stall ings. yesterday appeared at the bar of the United States District Court and moved that the case be remanded to the Montgomery City Court. The bond com pany and the County Treasurer were rep resented by Hon. Thomas H. Watts of Montgomery and MT. McGarran, Balti- gau aaPh 0f the laW argued the case at length.
 The first question that arose was the right of the County to file counter affida- wits denying the facts on which the re- movaI of the case from the Montgomery City Court was ordered. Objection to this procedure was interposed by the lawyers representing the defendants. and & prolonged discussion ensued great number of decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the various circuit and district courts were read. It was claimed and denied that the District Court having made the order of removal at the last term, ex parte, it could now reopen the question
 From intimations made by Judge Jones ho was evidently of the opinion that he has discretion to allow affldavtts to be filed if they go to show the falsity of the alleged facts out of which the prejudice in the City Court was claimed. Judge Jones, however told the lawyers that he was only suggesting what occurred to him as the argument proceeded. adding that he would not decide the question until he was fully advised by the argu- ment and tho examination of authorities on the subject.
 The next question to be raised by the lawyers is that of citizenship of Ala bama. MT. Cochran being a citizen of this State and the plaintiff being a cor poration of Alabama, while the code fendant in the case is a corporation of Maryland the Court will be asked to de- eide whether the case can be removed as to both of the codefendants or either of them.
 This question will be argued before Judge Jones beginning this morning and a decision may be handed down today on the motion to remand the case to the Montgomery City Court.