The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-08-13

this application. the pleadings in said
cause In the State Court, and the petl-
ton and bond filed by plaintiff. are made
a part Of this motion. and asked TO be
taken and considered herewith as part
thereof" The certified transcript OF the
proceedings in the State Court. and sworn
petition for removal and the bond. are
the only matters offered in support of the
motion.
Opinion Of Judge Jones.
What is the amount in controversy
here? In view of everyday experience, II
makes objectionable drafts on the cred
Utility of an ordinary mans mind to ask
MIN to believe that the plaintiff met with
five different accidents. in consequence
of negligence In the management of
train, on the same day on trips over a
modern railroad, between two stations not
over twenty miles apart, and that in each
of these five accidents the same passen-
ger was so unfortunate as to receive IN
juries to one of his ears Morally, the
court Is satisfied that the five counts.
instead of being intended to present sep
arate and independent causes of action
based on different injuries. meant only
TO meet varying phases of the proof as
to one and the same injury. If the court
could act on this moral satisfaction, 1t
would unhesitatingly remand this cause.
In Barry V. Edmunds, 116 U. S. $50. 1t
is held: "A suit cannot properly he dis
missed by the Circuit Court ST the Cnitel
States as not substantially involving a
controversy within the jurisdiction of the
court, unless the facts when made to ap-
pear on the record. create legal GER
tainty of that conclusion
Speaking of the order of dismissal there
the Supreme Court said: The Circuit
Court exercises a legal not a personal dis
erection, which must be exerted in view
of facts sufficiently proven and controlled
by fixed principles of law. 1t might hap
pen that the Judge on the hearing or
trial of the cause would receive impress
sions amounting to a moral certainty
that 1t does not really and substantially
involve a suit or controversy within the
jurisdiction of the court but upon such
personal conviction, however strong, he
would not be at liberty to proceed. I'M
less the facts on which the persuasion IS
based, when made distinctly to appear
on the record, create a legal certainty of
the conclusion based on them. Nothing
less chan this is meant by the statute
when it provides that the failure of its
jurisdiction on this account shall appear
to the satisfaction of the court
ms court tHSil. is !1DL at liberty "
remand. unless the facts on which the
aston is based'-here, the record, and
petition for removal-create a legal GER
talnty.' of the conclusion that only nine
teen hundred and ninety dollars damages
are claimed. TIE suit here is for personal
injuries The law provides no fixed meas
ure of recovery In cases of this kind and
1t falls within the principle, when the
law gives no rule. the demand of the
plaintiff must furnish one Wilson v.
Daniel 3 Dallas. 4O1
How then. is this complaint to be
construed. in ascertaining the amount of
damageg claimed? WHAT is meant by the
allegation in several of the counts that
plaintiff claims the further sum of nine
teen hundred and ninety dollars?' One
meaning of further is additional. In
Maupay V. Holley. Ala, 103, 1t is said,
where tie declaration contains several
count1. each count is considered and
treated as the statement Of a different
action. They are as distinct as If they
were In separate declarations In Rob-
insen V. Drummond, "a Ala. ia. it is
said if there Is no express reference to
one another. the separate counts are as
distinct as IL contained in a separate dec
laration.' See to the same effect u. R.
Co. V. Dusenberry, 81 Ala. 40S and Castro
". DeUriarty. II Fed. Rep. go. 1t is