The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-08-13
JUDGE THOMAS G. JONES DENIES MOTION
TO REMAND THOMPSON RAILWAY CASE

, legally possible for the plaintiff to re-
cover under each count. Hayward ".
Mtg. Co, IS Fed. Rep. 4; Armstrong ".
Ettleshon, So Fed. Rep. 200. Under our
practice, the plaintiff can sue In the same
action for separate and Independent torts'
and recover damages for each in one suit
Code, Section 1928 L. & N. r. X. co. v.
Golfer. 10 Ala. 491.
If the separate counts are to be treat
ed a sdistinct, as IL they were in separate
declarations, how can the court arrive
at a legal certainty when the question
is tested solely on the allegations OF the
complaint and petition for removal, that
separate end distinct injuries are not de-
clared on in the different counts? The
counts do not state that they are based
on one and the same physical hurt. or
on one and the same legal wrong 10 tne
plaintiff On this issue, 1t Is admissible
10 construe the complaint most strongly
against the pleader, in .avor or the ue-
PENDANT. 1t is possible that the plaintiH
met with more than one accident, IN
voving injuries to his ear. on the same
day, on trips between Huntsville ana Bel
Nina If he did meet with more tnan
one injury, the language of the complaint
Ia apDropriate to a claim for damages for
separate injuries in different counts. ana
the amount in controversy Is clearly
within the jurisdiction. 1t Is legally
nossible' on the face of the complaint for
him to recover for more than one injury.
The court has only the complaint ana
the sworn petition for removal TO look
to and cannot say that the facts as MADE
distinctly to appear on the RECORD
create a legal certainty of :he con ;lu-
sion that only one injury Is oeciareu OH
in the several counts.
Uninf1uenced by the decision in Barry
" Edmunds. supra, the court would hold.
In view of the known practice or the
profession in drawing such complaints,
that the complaint being susceptible OF
two constructions. one Of which leaves
this court without jurisdiction, doubts as
to it's proper construction should be re-
slved against the jurisdiction. Barry v.
Edmunds while not dealing with the
matter of claims in separate counts. IS
quite emphatic In laying down the RUE
that the moral satisfaction of the judge
as to the want Of jurisdiction. does not
authorize a remand Of a prima facie
case. If the conclusion does not appear as
a legal certainty from facts distinctly
made to appear on the record before the
court.
Speaking of the judgment Of the low
err court which was reversed. the SUI
preme Court observed the action OF the
lower court Is MT based on evidence or
an attempted fraud upon the jurisdiction
of the court, but upon the assumption.
as matter Of law. that upon the face OF
the declaration no recovery could be le-
gally had of an amount sufficient to make
the matter in dispute equal to that re-
CURED to maintain its jurisdiction
Here, the court is met with the same
difficulty. If demands the cause, must
be upon the assumption as matter CT
law that upon the face Of the declara-
ton no recovery could be legally had OF
an amount sufficient ito make the matter
in dispute equal to that required to main
tain it's jurisdiction II the decisions OF
the Supreme. CoCrt of Alabama, and the
others cited. ire right rs to the proper
construction of complaint containing
several counts. the court cannot ass inc
as matter of law that only one injury is
complained of here. and that all the
CT UNITS relate tc 1t. If they do not. a
sufficient amount of damages is claimed
to bring this case within the jurisdiction.
Whether 1t will be the duty of the
court to retain this case If it shall be
made to appear on the trial that but one
wrong Is complained of in the several
counts. is a question not now before me-
The motion to remand the cause is de-
MED.