Year: 1868




Before Judge Blatchford.


The case of Hatch VS.. the Chicago and Rock Island
Railway Company was up again yesterday on argu.
ment in the United States Circ.it Court,
before Judge Blatchford. The case had been
originally in the State courts, but 1t was removed
into the Circuit Court and a motion was
made to remand the case back again TO the State
courts, and to dissolve injunction which had been
granted, calling upon the railway company to cancel
certain stock which they had issued for the construc
ton OF road from Des MOines to the Missouri river


Mr.. Charles O'Conor of counsel for the railway
company, was heard at considerable length In oppo-
stion TO the motion for the removal of the case to
the State courts. In the course OF his remarks he
asked was there anything In the case that was an OBJ
stacle to the conduct OF part of 1t in this court and
as TO the other part in the court below' Nothing
was better settled In the act Of 1889 than
that u the interest Of the party was distinct
court. He quoted the case OF Beardsley and Todd,
Circuit Court Reports, in support OF his argument.
The same rule was laid down by Chancellor Kent. If
TINS were not so one party nigh; preclude another
from doing so by y0king another party with him with
whom he had no connection. The whole CAIN
was against the company. What was the
treasurer OF the railway company dragged in !ors
Because ne had money which, by decree o: tie
court. might be used In redemption OF stock The
court was TO decide what power this corporation had
and II there was decision against making the road
could they act get the funds out OF the hands OF
to the suta When the court which had
jurisdiction came 10 make decree, all
tosc pdTlle5 WOuiu DC ifdDe 10 answer 10 the court
Y they we're guilty OF any contempt of It's orders
Mr.. Hatch said to the Rock Island Chicago ard RAN.
road Company. You You are re- bound as my trustee. not
river" The railroad company deny the trust.
They say, I'VE not trustees for you 70 keep this
not bound to you in that wayh The cases respect.
ing the removal Of matters into this court were
saws the Se ., s ne vasa
may take cognizance OF controversies between
q ss a the Of
States, but the constitution took q broader
view and referred to controversies. It cannot be
al other powers that are necessary give effect
the expressed power. Let them taxe the case OF .
great; pursuing common practice. he admits into
ms firm four or nve persons, little better than clerks.
All ,t these n; mus. v oe brought In a. copartners
brings an action In New York 1t might be said that
one OF his partners resided in New Jersey. Unless
the powers or the court were expanded TO the
measure Of the constitution there might be sup
possible case In which those powers would be nuga.
tory. He claimed that, under the provisions of the
constitution, there was no difficulty whatever Ia
taking jurisdiction Of controversy between persons
belonging to different States provided Congress
gave that power. He claimed also that there was no
doubt about the removal Of this this court as
this corporation was the only substantial defendant
The learned gentleman then pointed Out the mean
ing and application OF the acts OF Congress on this
subject, specially referring to the acts OF 1866 and
1857. Not only were those directors OF the company
not necessary to be present at any decision to be
against this corporation, they were not only not ne
cessary parties not what were called formal parties
but really and truly no parties at all. II was mat
ter OF the eres fancy and utterly frivolous to have
them as parties TO the suit at all TIE act OF Congress
did not say that the court below shall order the
cause TO BE removed. II merely said that
the court should not go further. Judge Cardozo
decided that Mr.. Hatch was citizen Of New York;
that the amount in controversy exceeded $780, and
accepted the security they gave. There al his func-
tions ended. Down TO 1856 Congress went on the
principle OF not taking up controversies, but
merely dealing with suits and providing for
removals, az u respected suits, and not n
respect Of the broader field OF acuon-contro-
versies. The act Of 1857, an amendment 20 the
act Of 1856, seemed 70 have been stimulated by
strong desire TO protect strangers from oca par.
tiaty and prejudice. 1t dealt with suits as
suits and controversies controversies, ard
treated them as distinct and independent
things or interests. The court wou.d see the
distinction drawn by the act OF 1887 between
suits and controversies. Upon affldavt declaring
that there was local prejudice the cause should be
removed; but without slandering a whole commu-
nifty In that way the could be removed into the
Circuit Court more especially where there were
different parties 20 the suit.


Mr.. 0Conor having closed his argument some
affidavits and papers were read, after which the
court adjourned