10 IN THlll
FEDERAL REPORTETI.
MATTER
OF THE P£TITIOYOF MOORHEAD
THE BARNESVILLE
&
Ry: CO., etc. October, 1880.)
(District Oourt, D. Mmnesota.
1.
REMOVAL-JuRIsDIcTIoN-Tum WHEN CAUSE CAN PROCEED.-In
the case of a removal the jurisdiction of the federal court is not complete, 80 as to hear and determine the cause, before the day prescribed by the statute, although a transcript has been filed.
Application to proceed with the condemnation of a. railroad and the necessary land. Bigelow, Flandrau & Clark and R. B. Galusha, for petitioner. Gilman & Clo1tgh, for respondent, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. NELSON, D. J. The Barnesville & Moorhead Railway Company, organized under the general railroad laws of the state of Minnesot9., commenced proceedings under title 1, c. 34, Young's Minn. St., to obtain by condemnation a crossing over the track of the Northern Pacific road at or near Moorhead, in the county of Clay, and the land necessary for that purpose. The power to acquire by condemnation a crossing is granted by chapter 80, § 1, Minnesota Session Laws of 1879, and by section 3 the proceedings to obtain the land shall be instituted and conducted in the same manner as other similar proceedings by railroad companies under the General Statutes above alluded to, with some reservations, which are not important here. A petition stating the object a.nd amount of land, etc., to be taken was filed in accordance with the statutory provisions for the appointment of three commissioners to ascertain and report on the compensation, and presented to the district court of the state of Minnesota in and for the county where the land and crossing are sitnated, and proper notice given as required. At the time of the hearing, September 28, 1880, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company appeared by counsel and filed a petition stating, inter alia, that it will suffer damto a greater amount than $1,000; that it is a company and existing by virtue of certain acts of the congre83
IN
RE
B. & M. RY. CO.
11
of the Uuited States, attaching them, with the act of the state of Minnesota giving the company the right to build a railroad across the state, to its petition; and alleges "that it has a defence arising under the laws of the United States, to-wit: that it is a corporation of the United States created and existing as aforesaid, and holds its right of way, rights, and property under the acts of congress aforesaid, and that the state of Minnesota has no power to confer upon any person or corporation the right to enter upon the same or take the same in the manner proposed by the said proceedings; wherefore your petitioner, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, prays that the said proceedings be removed into the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, and that this court proceed no further therein." A bond with sureties that the Northern Pacific Railroad Company will enter in the United States circuit court, on the first day of the next session thereof hereafter to be holden; a copy of the record in the said suit and proceeding, etc., accompanied the petition, and was Dled. The district court of the state made the following order: "Ordered that the application of the Northern Racific RailR road Company to remove the said proceedings into the circuit court. of the United States for the district of Minnesota. be a.nd the same hereby is granted, and that no further proceedings in this matter be had in this court. By the court. "October 6,1880. O. P. STEARNS, Judge." The Barnesville & Moorhead Railway Company' have procured a properly-certified copy of the record in the state court, and filed it in the United States circuit court, October 18, 1880, the next regular session of the court being on the second Monday of December, and on this copy of the record asks the court to proceed with the condemnation of the crossing and the necessary land, etc. The Northern Pacific Railroad Company objects to the 'jurisdiction of the court to proceed in the matter at this time. The right is given by the statutes to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, whose land is to be condemned and track crossed, to show cause, on the hearing for the appointment of commissioners, against gmntin;j the prayer of the petition,
12
FEDERAL REPORTER.
and a,ny of the facts therein contained may be disproved, an,d the court shall hear the proofs and allegations of the parties; and if satisfied that the public interests require the crossing to be made, and the lands, etc., to be taken are necessary for the pu:pose, it shall make an order appointing three commissioners to ascertain the amount to be paid by the petitioning corporation to persons interested. An appeal is allowed from this appraisement of the commissionors, to be prosecuted in the court where their report is filed, and it is to be submitted to a jury to re-aSl':less the damages awarded, etc. Whether the proceeding, as shown by the record presented, is essentially political in, its character and not judicial, and whether it is a suit within the meaning of the second section of the removal act of 1875, it is not necessary at this time to determine. All parties appear ,to agree that it is a suit or proceeding which can be removed from the state court. and I shall not on this application consider the question. The only poip.t. to is, has the f!;lderal court at this time jurisdiction SOraS to proceed with the matter? I am inclined to the opiniou, on filing the petition in the state 'court, making a proper case for removal, and executing a:ud filing the bond required, jurisdiction in thecircqit court, and when at any it is known by the .federal court that such steps have been taken in the state court for removal, either by a copy of the record being filed or entered therein before the time. required by the statute, many inci_ dental proceedings may be taken, and provisional remedies, as attachments, etc., may be granted on motion, as could be done after the commencement of suit by original process and appearance of the defendant; but the cause cannot proceed until the limited time has expired and the transcript entered. Such interpretation of the removal acts has support in the opinion of the supreme conrt of the United States when construing section 641 of the Revised Statutes, involved in the case of Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 316. There is a declaration in that section similar to the one in the act of 1875 that "upon filing of the petition (no bond being required) all further proceedings in the state ccnrt sh1111 coase. ,., · ." The langtlfL3c of the act of 1875 is: "The state court shall
accept the petiti6n andbo'nd, al1(fproceed'no , lluit;" and the oonrt'say,·{jn' page 317 ;j. "It is·therefore a material inquiry whether the petition of the defendants sets forth snch facts as made a case for revibval, and consequently arrested the jurisdiction of ·the state court and transferred H to the federal court; implying that the federal court acquired jurisdiction ipso facto on filing petition and bond. So, also, in the Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 475, the court say: "While the act of congress requires security that the transcript B.hall be filed on the first day, it nowhere appears that the circuit court to be deprived of jurisdiction if by accident the party is dela.ye(1 untilala.ter da.yin the term. If the citcuitcourt, for good cause shown,accepts the transfer after the day; and during the term, its jurisQ,ietionwill, as a general rule1be complete. and theremQval" properly effected.". :lunder. atand, from the opinions of the court in these cases, that when the of the 8tatecourt ceases that of the, federal (Sourt J'ttaohf)8 for. some purposes, on entering a. copy; of the rec9rd, lilQ that,tbe·Qour;t'm.a.y know the facts;; buMhe' juris.. diction of the federal QOurl,is not completeIBoasto·hea.r and 4,etern;rinetbe cause, althollgha transcript is 'filed, until on .the day prescribedJn: the statnte,or after,·if the cotui See Dillon on Removal .of Causes, 71; Mahonell. Mininq 00. v. Benfl,et,t,!l. Inasmuch as the next proceeding in the case in hand is defendant to contest. the facts in the petition, lam of the opinion the courtoannot a.t ·this timeen'tertain ii.· . Application.toproceed >
In re 1.
and others, Bankrupts.
(Oircuit Ooort, D. Indiana,. - - , 1880.) COUR'r-T,IlIE.-An appeal from an order of the district court should be 'entered 1h the circuit court within ten after the appeal is taken, although the circuit. court is in session at the time the order is made. and continues so up to tbe end of the ten days.
In Bankruptcy. Motion to Dismiss Appeals.