its attorney-in-fact and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 22nd day of October, in the year nineteen hundred and three. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Attorney-in-fact. Attest: State of New York, SS: On the 22nd day of October, in the year 1903, before me personally came Henry B. Platt, to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say, that he resided in the city of New York; that he was the vice-president of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, the corporation described in, and which executed the within instrument; that he knew the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument was such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation, and that he signed his name thereto by like order; and that the liabilities of said company do not exceed its assets as ascertained in the manner provided in section 3, of chapter 720, of the Session Laws of the State of New York for the year 1893. And the said Henry B. Platt further said that he was acquainted with James R. Kingsley, and knew him to be the attorney-infact of said company; that the signature of the said James R. Kingsley, subscribed to the within instrument, was in the genuine handwriting of the said James R. Kingsley, and was subscribed thereto by like order of the board of directors, and in the presence of him the said Henry B. Platt. JAMES T. CRANE, Notary Public, New York County. At a regular and lawful meeting of the board of directors of the Fi delity and Deposit Company of Maryland, at which a quorum was present, held at the office of the company, in the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, on the sixth day of March, 1901, on motion, it was unanimously. "Resolved, That in pursuance of section eight hundred and eleven of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York, Henry B. Platt, vice-president, or George Sewell Bonner, attorney, or Frank H. Platt, Edward T. Platt, Joseph A. Flynn, Hugh M. Allwood and James R. Kingsley, attorney-in-fact of this company, in the State of New York, be and each of them is, hereby authorized and empowered to sign, execute and deliver any and all bonds or undertakings for or on behalf of this company, and to attach thereto the seal of the corporation, the same to be attested by the said George Sewell Bonner, attorney of the company, or by either one of the other persons above named, as occasion may require." County of New York, ss: I, James R. Kingsley, attorney-in-fact, of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, have compared the foregoing resolution with the original thereof, as recorded in the minute book of said company, and do hereby certify that the same is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole of the said original resolution. Given under my hand and the seal of the company, at the city of New York, this 22nd day of October, 1903. JAMES R. KINGSLEY. (Next followed summary statement of assets and liabilities.) James R. Kingsley, being duly sworn, says that he is the attorney-infact of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland; that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the financial condition of said company, as of December 31st, 1902, to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the financial condition of said company is as favorable now as it was when such statement was made. JAMES R. KINGSLEY. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 22nd day of October, 1903. JAMES T. CRANE, Notary Public, New York County. State of New York, SS. I, Thomas L. Hamilton, clerk of the county of New York, and also clerk of the supreme court for the said county, the same being a court of record, do hereby certify, that James T. Crane, whose name is subscribed to the certificate of the proof or acknowledgment of the annexed instrument, and thereon written, was, at the time of taking such proof or acknowledgment, a notary public in and for the county of New York, dwelling in the said county, commissioned and sworn, and duly authorized to take the same. And further that I am well acquainted with the handwriting of such notary and verily believe that the signature to the said certificate of proof or acknowledgment is genuine. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court and country, the 22d day of Oct., 1903. (Seal.) THOS. L. HAMILTON, Clerk. (Endorsed:) New York supreme court, Jefferson county. Hiram Remington, plaintiff, against Central Pacific Railroad Co., defendant. Bond. I hereby approve of the within bond as to form and sufficiency of surety. Dated Oct. 26, 1903. Watson M. Rogers, J. S. C. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 35 Wall street, New York. REMOVAL FORM XII.-CERTIFICATE TO THE RECORD BY THE CLERK OF THE STATE COURT. I, Edward F. Reilly, clerk of said city and county and clerk of the supreme court of said State for said county, do certify that I have compared the preceding with the original record on removal to United States court, Dominick Amato vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, on file in my office, and that the same is a correct transcript, filed March 13th, 1890, therefrom, and the whole of such original. In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal this 24th day of March, 1890. [SEAL.] EDWARD F. REILLY, Clerk. Endorsed: Filed March 24, 1890. (Sig.) John A. Shields, clerk. REMOVAL FORM XIII.-MOTION FOR REMAND. [106 Fed. 771.] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Now come the plaintiffs and move this Court to remand the aboveentitled cause to the District Court of Bourbon County, State of Kansas, for the reasons following, to wit: 1. The defendants and each of them, as shown by the bill and by the petition to remove, are corporations organized under the laws of Kansas, and were sued in a Court of that State, and hence cannot remove this cause on the ground of diverse citizenship. 2. It is not true as complained in the petition for removal that a federal question is made or presented by the bill so as to entitle the defendants, or either of them, to remove this cause to this Court. 3. This court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause. Holmes & Perry Attorneys for Plaintiffs. REMOVAL FORM XIV.-ORDER FOR REMAND. IN THE [DISTRICT] COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. [In which the author was counsel, 106 Fed. 771.] MARY P. STEVENS et al., Executors, &c., V8. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RY. Co., et al. It is now ordered that the motion of the plaintiffs to remand this cause to the District Court of Bourbon County, Kansas, be and the same hereby is sustained. It is, therefore, ordered that this cause be remanded to said State Court, and that this cause was not properly removable to this Court. JNO. A. WILLIAMS, Judge. REMOVAL FORM XV.-ORDER DENYING REMAND. [106 Fed. 551.] At a Stated Term of the [District] Court of the United States, of the Second Judicial District, held in and for the Southern District of New York, at the Post Office Building, in the Borough of Manhattan, in the City and County of New York, on the 4th day of January, 1901. Present: Hon. E. Henry Lacombe, Circuit Judge. This cause having been commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in the County of New York, on the 15th day of October, 1900, and having been removed into this Court by the defendant on the 10th day of December, 1900, and the plaintiffs having moved to remand the same to the State court on the ground that the said removal was not in time, by an order to show cause made herein on the 19th day of December, 1900, and the said motion having come on to be heard on the 28th day of December; Now, on reading and filing the said order to show cause, dated the 19th day of December, 1900, and the affidavit of J. Philip Berg, on which the said order was granted, sworn to the 18th day of December, 1900, and on reading the record on removal filed herein on the 10th day of December, 1900, and on all the papers and proceedings heretofore had herein; and after hearing Roger Foster, Esq., of counsel for the plaintiffs in support of said motion, and Edwards H. Childs, Esq., of counsel for the defendant in opposition thereto, and due deliberation being thereupon had, it is Ordered, that the said motion to remand be and the same hereby is denied. E. H. LACOMBE, (Endorsed:)-Circuit Court of the United States, Southern District of New York, Second Judicial Circuit.-Christian Dancel and ano., against Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company. Order denying motion to remand. Edwards H. Childs, 59 Wall Street, New York City, Attorney for Defendant.-U. S. Circuit Court.-Filed Jan. 4, 1901.-John A. Shields, Clerk. REMOVAL FORM XVI.-ORDER FOR REPLEADER AFTER REMOVAL. [106 Fed. 771 in which the author was counsel.] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS-THIRD DIVISION. MARY P. STEVENS and FREDERICK C. STEVENS, Executors under the last Will and Testament of ROBERT S. EVANS, deceased, Plaintiffs, 08. THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY and THE KANSAS CITY & PACIFIC Defendants. |