The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-16
CASE IS TRANSFERRED
RAILROAD LITIGATION GOES TO
 FEDERAL COURT.
Juage sayre Renders an Opinfen Deny ing Petitien of the Louisvf1le and NashvllIe-News of Othe1
 LOcol COuFtn.

Judge A. D. Sayre, presiding over the City Court of Montgomery In Equity, yesterday overruled the peti- tion of the South and North Railway Company of Alabama to have the fn- junction against 1t, filed by Henry B. Gray. removed to the United States Court for the Middle District of Ala bama.
 It was, however. suggested by Judge Sayre that the petitioner apply for the removal before the proper Federal Court. This was done and yesterday Judge Thomas c. Jones of the United States Court for the Middle District Of Alabama ordered the removal
 It will be remembefed that last week. a petition for injunction was filed by Henry B. Gray. a minority stockholder of the South and North Alabama Rail- way Company, praying that the Louis. vile and Nashville Railroad Company be enjoined from voting the ninety shares of stock in the South and North owned by it to sell the South and North to the Louisville and Nashville for 327So per share and that the South and North be enjoined from the further prosecution of a suit for an accounting of the affairs of the company in tho Chancery Court of Jefferson County. A temporary injunction was granted. A few days ago, counsel for the Louis- vile and Nashville filed a petition in ! the City Court of Montgomery asking for the removal of the cause to the
 United States Court on account of the
 diversity of the residences of the va- rious parties in the litigation.
 Judge Sayres opinion was as fol- folws:
 T recognize to it's full extent the proposition that the question of the re- moval of this cause Is for the decision | of the Federal Court ultimately.
 Nevertheless. this court is at liberty to inquiEe whether, on the face of the | record, case Is made which requires 1t to proceed no further (Crehore vs. | o. & M. R. Co.,, 131 U. s. 245.) And
 take it the duty of the court is CO.,
 extensive with its liberty of action. without intending to overstep the restricted area within which a State
 court may exercise power and duty. as
 been unable to find in the record in this
 case any cause for removal. The
 theory of the petition for removal as
 understand it, is>that the only relief prayed against the South and North Alabama Railway Company is that it
 be enjoined from the further prosecu- | ton of the suit filed in it's name in Jefferson County and that as to every
 other contention involved in the litiga-
 tion is for the benefit of the South and
 North Alabama Railway Company.
 which must therefore, for the purposes
 of this petition. be ranged on the side
 of the complainant: and so 8 separa-
 ble controversy is said to be developed
 as to every subject of litigation except
 the Jefferson County injunction suit in
 which all real parties complainant are
 citizens of Alabama and the only party
 defendant is citizen of Kentucky. Tt is, however. perfectly plain that as to all controversies involved,
 whether the Jefferson County suit be
 included or excluded. the complainant.
 as a minority stockholder. Is seeking protection against the hurtful and il- legal acts of his own corporation. the South and North Alabama Railway Company, done by and through the
 agency of its Board of Directors and
 CTS. as we'll as against the Louisville and Nashville Company A combina-
 tion for illegal purposes. hurtful to minority stockholders is charged against all the defendants. In this state of the case. I have the authority of the Supreme Court of the United State for holding that 1t is not per- missible in considering the question of removability, to range the South and North Company on the side of the complainant for any purposes sought by the bill in this cause. (E. T. & V. c. R. R. Co.,, vs. Grayson. 11s U. s. 240.) It thus fails to appear that there is any separable controversy in which all real parties complainant are citizens of Alabama and all real parties defendant are citizens of another State; and so still further, 1t seems there Is no cause for removal
 Being of opinion that no case is shown which requires of this court a to proceed no further. I will leave the complainant to apply to the proper Federal Court for an order of removal
 "A. D. Sayre, Judge of the City Court of Montgom-
 cry"
 On the transcript of the bond filed in the United States Court with the other papers Judge sayre made this endorsement:
 This bond is sufficient in form and solvency and I decline to approve 1t solely on the ground that a case is not shown for removal"