Washington on a through ticket, in a car of the plaintiff in error, and
on a train conducted by his agents, was run off the track and down a
bank in consequence of the weakness of a wheel which might have
been known, and suffered a serious and lasting injury, for which an
action was brought to recover compensation. The defence set up that
at the time the accident happened the train was managed by a Con-
necticut company to whom the road had been leased. Held, that that
fact would not bar a recovery ; that if notwithstanding the execution
of the lease the plaintiff in error, through its agents and servants,
managed and conducted and controlled the train to which the accident
happened, it would be responsible for that accident. Chesapeake &
Ohio Railway Co. v. Howard, 153.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
1. The decision in Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U.S. 459, followed to the point that
the words in the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, with regard to the
removal of causes from a state court, (as corrected by the act of Au-
gust 13, 1888, c. 866,) "at any time before the trial thereof,” used in
regard to removals “from prejudice or local influence,” were used by
Congress with reference to the construction put by this court on simi-
lar language in the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, and are to
receive the same construction, which required the petition to be filed
before or at the term at which the cause could first be tried, and before
the trial thereof. McDonnell v. Jordan, 229.
2. This was an ordinary action, under a state statute, for wrongfully caus-
ing the death of plaintiff's intestate, in which no Federal question was
presented by the pleadings, or litigated at the trial, and in which the
liability depended upon principles of general law, and not in any way
upon the terms of the order appointing the receivers; and whatever
the rights of the receivers might have been to remove the cause if they
had been sued alone, the controversy was not a separable controversy
within the intent and meaning of the act of March 3, 1887, as corrected
by the act of August 13, 1888, and this being so, the case came solely
within the first clause of the section, and it was not intended by Con-
gress that, under such circumstances, there should be any difference
between the rule applied under the first and second clauses of the act.
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin, 245.
See NATIONAL BANK, 1.
A. STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1;
NATIONAL BANK, 1, 2;
COAL MINE, 1;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10; NAVIGABLE WATERS;
INHERITANCE Tax, 1; PUBLIC LAND, 6, 11;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.