CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED Dl'TBB
Jtatts UHLE
and et al.· v. BURNHAM
et aZ.
FISCHL
et al. v.
SAME.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 14, lsg0.) REMOVAL OF CAUSES-CITIZENSHIP·
. Under the act of March 8,1887, an action pending in a state court may be removed by defendant to the federal court, although neither party is a resident of the district. Following Kansas OUll & T.· R. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 87 Fed. Rep.S.
At Law. On motion to remand. The plaintiffs in both actions are aliens, and the defendants are residents of the state of Missouri. Both actions were commenced by the service -Of a summons in the supreme court of New York. Within the 20 days allowed by the law of New York for defendants· to. answer or' plead, they removed the cases into this court. Plaintiffs move toremand. . Coos. Putzel, for plaintiffs, cited: Denton v. International Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 1; Galvin v. Boutwell, 9 Blatchf. 470; Meyer v. Herrera, ante, 65; Halstead v. Manning, 34 Rep. 565; Harold v. Mining Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 529. David A. Sullivan, (Don M. Dickin80n, of counsel,)fordefendl:j.nts, cited: J(af\8aB City, etc., RiJI. 00. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 5; Burck v. Taylor, 39 Fed. :Rep. 581; Cooley v. McArthur, 35 Fed. Rep. 372; First Nat. Bank v. Merchants' 'Bank, 37 Fed. Rep. 657; Gaines v. F'tumte8, 92 U.S. 10; In re Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Sayle8 v. I1l$Urance Co., 2 Curt. 212; Barney v. Bank,S Blatchf. 107; Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; Green v. Custard, 23 How. 484; Wilson v. Telegraph Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 561; LoomiB v. Cbal 33 Fed. Rep. 353; Fale8 v. Railroad Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673. LACOMBE, J. It seems unnecessary to add anything to the full discussion of the Qllestions raised on this motion which will be. foopa in v.42F.no,1-1
J'EDERAL
vol. 4:2.
Kansas Oi!:y, etc., Ry. C{). v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 3, (by Judge BREWER,) and Burck. v.. Taylor, 39 Fed. Rep. 581, (by Judge MAXEY.) The motion to re{rrand 'is denied. See, also, First Nat. Bank v. Merchanta' Bank, 37 Fed. Rep. 657.
BARHORST
et
V·. ARMSTRONGet,al.
(Circuit CoUrt, S. D. Ohio, W. D. March 29, 1890.)
1.
EQUITT-UA:RSHALING AsSETS-JUDGlIIENT.
2. INJUNOTION-NEGLECT OF A T T O R N E Y . '
The fact that an attorney engaged to defend a suit neglects to do so is no ground for enjoining the enforcement of the judgment j the only remedY,of the judgmllnt debtor, if he was, damaged,. is against the -attorney. " , " , ,
", ' , ' Billfb.'1i an injunction'filed by Harmon Barhorst and Mary Barhorst, his wife, against' David ArrI18trong, receiver of the Fidelity Natiohal Bank oNilineinnati, Moses F. Brown, L.F. Brown, and Alfred Hill. O. H. Blackburn, for complainants. 'Hill ;&: Stritker and Paxton Warrington-, for defendantB. , ' SAGE, J. 'This suit is upon an ancillary bill filed by complai,9ants to restrain proceedings upon a judgment for 8500, recovered in this court by Davfd Apnstrong, recejverof the Fidelity Na their promissory nqtedated June 9, 1887, and. payable 10 m()ilther after date to the order otMoses F. Biown. set forth that they fully paid said note before its Illattirity to Moses F.Brown; and with intent to defraud, failed to detransferred it to Arnratrong, liver it t6thern'!1pon its payment, as:receiverof the 1J'idelityNatil;mal sMunty,; that Armstrong, with'knowledge that the note had been paid before lilaturity" after it had become due entered into an agreement withL.F'. Brown, who had notice of the payment of the note, whereby he wfls toassume aIidpay ot Moses F. Brown the Fidelity National Bank16i-'thEl the ribte to and bthllJ! 'notes were held by Armstrong as collateralj that it was further agreed that said "
l
to