Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

his right so to act. Previously to the filing of said bill and on or about July 23, 1921, your oratrix filed in the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey a bill in equity the defendants to which were said Edward Lawrence [Dowd] individually and as executor of the last will and testament of Edward [Dowd] deceased, and Josephine K. [Dowd], wife of said defendant, May Irene Goodman, Edward H. Goodman, the husband of said May Irene, Ellie D. Trotter and Joseph Trotter, her husband, the latter having died before the said bill had been filed, although this was then unknown to your oratrix, when she filed her bill in said Federal Court. Said defendant Trotter appeared in said Federal suit by the same attorney that has appeared for the complainants herein and denied knowledge as to the lands of which the said Edward [Dowd] died seized. The complainants here also appeared and answered in said suit by the same attorney.

Said bill filed in this Honorable Court sets forth clearly and specifically the respective interests which each of said descendants of said Thomas [Dowd] has in each of said parcels of land. Said bill further alleges that the said tracts of land and premises cannot be divided among the owners thereof without great prejudice to their interests and prays for a sale thereof including the right of dower of your petitioner the inchoate right of dower of the complainant Josephine and that, the proceeds thereof be divided among the complainants and the respective parties interested according to their respective rights, shares and interests. In the partition suit in which this petition is filed the defendants, May Irene Goodman, Edward Harris Goodman and Ellie Trotter have appeared and answered joining in the same answer by Willard F. Loeb, Esq., as their solicitor and attorney. Said Willard has an office in the suite of offices occupied and leased by Hon. William D. Loeb, who is the solicitor for the complainants therein, and said William and Willard are associated together in practice. The defendant, the Camden Safe Deposit and Trust Company, as trustee, as aforesaid, and Mary W. Troth have appeared and answered therein through George Roberts, Esq., as attorney and solicitor for them. In each and all of the said answers filed by and in behalf of the said five defendants it is alleged in the same language that they and each of them respectively admit that the rights and interests of the several tracts or parcels of land mentioned and described in said bill are truly set forth and stated in said bill;" and further that said defendants and each of them respectively submits "to such decree as this court may make in the premises either for a partition of the said several tracts or parcels of land, or for a sale of the whole or a part thereof, in case said tracts or parcels of land are so circumstanced that a partition thereof cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners of the same." Said answers were drafted and the originals thereof copied from a draft prepared by said Hon. William D. Loeb, the solicitor for the complainants. In or about the month of December, 1921, the said defendants Goodman filed a bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County and State of Pennsylvania, praying the partition or sale of certain land in said City

and State, in one-half of which said Edward Dudley died seized and in which your petitioner has a right of dower. All of the other parties to this suit including your petitioner excepting said tenants are made parties defendant to said Pennsylvania suit. There is no other party thereto except one Stella Hamilton who is a tenant of said Philadelphia property. None of the parties to said Pennsylvania suit has opposed the relief therein prayed. The said suit was brought at the request and instigation of the said complainants [Dowd] and said defendants Trotter.

VIII. The value of your petitioner's right of dower in the said lands described in said bill of partition in this Honorable Court exceeds the sum of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and did so exceed at the time said bill was filed.

IX. This petition is made and filed before your petitioner is required by the Laws of the State of New Jersey or the rules of this Honorable Court to answer or plead to the bill in equity filed herein. It is desired by your petitioner to remove said cause from this Honorable Court to the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey in accordance with the Acts of Congress of the United States in that behalf made and provided. No special bail was or is required in said suit. Your petitioner files and offers herewith and herein a bond with good and sufficient security in the penal sum of $500, conditioned as required by the Acts of Congress of the United States in that behalf made and provided for entry in the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey within thirty days from the date of filing this petitioner a copy of the record of this suit and to pay all costs that may be awarded in said District Court of the United States if said Court shall hold that this suit was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto.

Your petitioner further prays that the said bond may be accepted as good and sufficient, and that this Honorable Court will pursuant to the Act of Congress in such case made and provided, cause the record herein to be removed into the said District Court of the United States, and that no further or other proceedings may be had in said causes in this court. Dated, New York, January 28th, 1922.

[blocks in formation]

"MARIE [DOWD],"

Petitioner in person.

Marie [Dowd] being duly sworn, deposes and says: The foregoing petition is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. All of the

allegations therein are true to my own knowledge, except those which describe the papers filed in different courts and the conversations with Wm. D. Loeb, Esq., my information as to which is derived from my attorney Roger Foster herein, and except the allegations concerning the said defendant tenants the information concerning which is derived from the said William D. Loeb, Esq., and except the allegations as to intent instigation collusion request and copying answers which are charges made upon inferences drawn from the facts known by petitioner and from the information above set forth.

Sworn to before me this 28th day of January, 1922.

"N. H. FESSENDEN,''

Notary Public.

Clerk's Ctf. hereto annexed.

STATE OF NEW YORK,

COUNTY OF ULSTER.

SS.

"MARIE DOWD.''

On this 28th day of January, 1922, in the said State and County before me personally appeared Marie [Dowd] to me known and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the instrument hereto annexed and acknowledged to me that she had executed the same. "N. H. FESSENDEN," Notary Public.

REMOVAL FORM VI.-NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL BECAUSE OF PREJUDICE OR LOCAL INFLUENCE.

[blocks in formation]

To Messrs. Finley Stallings & Martin, Plaintiff's attorneys,

Street, Montgomery, Alabama, and W. W. Hill, Esq., attorney for defendant Cochran, Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

Sirs: Please take notice that on the day of February, 1902, at half past ten o'clock in the morning of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, in the Federal Building in the City and County of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, we shall present the annexed petition to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District

of Alabama and shall then and there move for an order removing the above entitled cause from the City Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, to the said District Court of the United States on the ground of prejudice and local influence.

February 15, 1902.

Yours, &c.,

WATTS, GANS & WHELAN,
Attorneys for the defendant.
THE FIDELITY & DEPOSIT
COMPANY OF MARYLAND,

Street, Montgomery, Ala.

REMOVAL FORM VII.-PETITION FOR REMOVAL BECAUSE OF PREJUDICE AND LOCAL INFLUENCE.

[The following petition was held to be sufficient, in Montgomery County v. Cochran, 116 Fed. 985, 986 (reversed upon the ground of jurisdiction, without passing upon the sufficiency of the petition, in Cochran v. Montgomery County, 119 U. S. 260). See Supra, § 549.]

"The County of Montgomery, Plaintiff, versus John J. Cochran, as Principal, and the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, a Corporation under the Laws of the State of Maryland, as Surety, Defendants. In the [District] Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama. Petition for the Removal of Said Cause from the City Court of Montgomery, Alabama.

To the Honorable the Judges of the [District] Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama: Your petitioner, the above-named Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, respectfully shows to this honorable court that the county of Montgomery, as plaintiff, brought suit of a civil nature, in the city court of Montgomery County, Alabama, on the 21st day of January, 1902, against your petitioner, the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, and one John J. Cochran, and that the matter or amount in dispute exceeds the sum or value of three thousand ($3,000.00) dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; that service of process in said case was made on your petitioner on the 24th day of January, 1902, and that the time for pleading or demurring to said complaint is within thirty days after the said service, and that your petitioner has heretofore, viz., on the fifteenth day of February, 1902, appeared in said city court of Montgomery and demurred to said complaint, and a copy of said complaint and the demurrer thereto is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and the first trial term for said case is the month of April, 1902; that the said controversy is between citizens of different States, in that the plaintiff was at the time of the commencement of said suit, and still is, a citizen of the State of Alabama; and that your petitioner, the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, was at the time of the commencement of this suit, and still is, a citizen of the State of Maryland, and of no other

State, having its principal office in the city of Baltimore in the said State of Maryland; and that the other defendant in said suit is a citizen of the said State of Alabama; and that your petitioner desires to remove this suit, which is now pending and undetermined in said State court, before the trial thereof, into the [District] Court of the United States, to be held in the Middle district of Alabama. Your petitioner further shows unto this honorable court that from prejudice and local influence in favor of the plaintiff, and adverse to this defendant, it will not be able to obtain justice in said court, or in any other State court, to which the defendant may, under the laws of this State, have a right to remove said cause, on account of such prejudice or local influence. And, in this connection, your petitioner further shows unto your honors that said above-mentioned suit is a suit instituted by a political subdivision of the State of Alabama, to wit, Montgomery County, against the said John J. Cochran, the treasurer of said Montgomery County, and your petitioner, a surety company, as surety on the official bond of said John J. Cochran, as treasurer of said Montgomery County, and that said suit is instituted by said County of Montgomery to recover the sum of $120,000.00 (one hundred and twenty thousand dollars), which last-mentioned sum is the penalty of said bond, alleged to have been deposited by the said John J. Cochran, as such county treasurer, in the banking house of Josiah Morris & Co., of Montgomery, Alabama, whereby the said sum is alleged to have been lost to the said County of Montgomery by reason of the failure and insolvency of the said Josiah Morris & Co., and that by reason of the nature of said suit all the residents and citizens of said Montgomery County have a direct interest in the recovery by the said plaintiff of the amount claimed. And in this connection your petitioner further shows unto your honors that the other defendant in this suit, John J. Cochran, is practically financially irresponsible, in that his assets, your petitioner is informed and believes and so states, are less than five thousand dollars, and that the said Cochran is therefore practically only a nominal party to the said suit, and that your petitioner, the said Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, would be obliged practically to meet the whole claim should judg ment be recovered against the defendants; and your petitioner further shows that from time to time heretofore there have been statements made in the public press to the effect that your petitioner is and will be held liable for the amount claimed in said suit, and will have to pay the same, and that said publications as. made in papers published in the City of Montgomery, and in other cities in the State of Alabama, have been circulated throughout all the counties in the said State of Alabama, whereby a local prejudice against your petitioner, and influence in favor of the plaintiff in said suit, has been created throughout the whole State of Alabama. Petitioner further avers that the amount sought to be recovered in said suit was, at the time of the failure of said Josiah Morris & Co., substantially all the funds of the plaintiff and the inconvenience to said plaintiff from its inability to use said money for public purposes has caused a feeling of prejudice against your petitioner, not only in the County of Montgomery, but in other parts of the

« AnteriorContinuar »