Source: https://openjurist.org/16/f1d/289
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:19:20+00:00

Document:
PUBLIC GRAIN & STOCK EXCHANGE V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
When, in consequence of the want of diligence on the part of an applicant for removal of a case from R state court, the issue has not been made up, or where the right exists to have the cause heard, or set down for hearing at the first term, and he does not 8sk for it, he cannot afterwards be permitted to apply to the state court for the removal of the cause. 2.
SAME-BOND NOT SIGNED BY APPLICANT.
Where the bond required by the third section of the act of 1875 is otherwise sufficient, it is not a valid objection that it was not signed by the party seeking to remove the case, but by a different person named therein as principal and another 8S surety.
Motion to Remand Cause to State Court.
A. B. Jenkf1, for plaintiff. Williams it Thompson, for defendants.
PUBLIC GRAIN & STOCK EXCHANGEV. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
the party, although required to give the security, should sign the bond; but it has been provided a proper bond of indemnity is given by other persons. I think, therefore, that the objection taken to the bond' is untenable, and constitutes no sufficient reason to remand the cause to .the state court. The other reason seems to me to be sound,-,namely, that the application for removal was not made ·intime. The cause could have been tried, within the meaning of the statute, before the seventeenth day of March, when the petition and bond for removal were filed in the state court. It seems clear that the object of the statute was to require reasonable diligence on the part of the applicltnt for removal, and not to allow the case to stand in the state court beyond the first term when it could have been heard. Now, in this case, a general demurrer was filed, which stood from April 29, 1889, until January 29, 1883, when the answer was filed. If, in consequence of the want of diligence on the part of the applicant for removal,. the issue is not made up, or if, having a right to have the cause heard, or set down for hearing, he does not ask fOl it, and therefore it is not heard, it would seem reasonable to hold that at another term he should not be permitted to apply to the state court for the removal of the cause. If, under the statute of this state, he had given notice that the answer was filed, and no replication had been filed by plain.tiff within the four days mentioned in the statute, then he would have had the right to set the cause down for hearing upon the bill and answer. Having 'failed to do this, it may be said to have been the fault of the defendant that the case was not heard prior to March 17th, or that the case was not before that time tliable, and therefore it would seem that, having waited so long before the application for removal was made, it can hardly be said that it was at the term at which the cause could be first tried, and before the trial thereof, and therefore the case will be remanded to the state court. Kerting v. Amer. Oleograph Go. 10 FED. REP. 17; Aldrich v. Grouch, rd. 305; Murray v. Holden, 2 FED. REP. 740; Scott v. Glinton ct S. R. Go. 6 Biss. 529.
See .Aldriah v. Crouan, 10 FED. REP. 305, and note 507; PhamiIV Hut. L. Ins. Co. v. Walrath, ante, 161.
REMOVAL OF CAUSE-Surr BY OR AGAINST' CORPORATlON CREATED BY ACT 011' CONGRESS.
A suit by or against II corporation ,created by an act of congress, is not necessarilya case which arises under a law of the United States, within the meaning of the second section of the act of March 3, 1875, providing for the rtliloval of causes from the state to the federal courts. 2.
SAME-CAlm ARISING UNDER LAWS of UNITED STATES.
Congress has not provided for the removal of every case hrought by or agltinst a federal corporation, upon the sole ground that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the United States.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.