Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/216

SOe fBCKBAL B£PO£TEB> �N»w ioBK SniK Manot'o Co. r. Second Nat. Bank op Patebsoh. �(C7tir«ui'( 0<niTt, D. Neu Jertep. Februaiy 13, 1882.) �1. Rkmovai, of Causes— JuiiisDiCTroN, Whkn Attaches. �Where a removal is authorized, the parties lieing citizens of different states, the matter in dispute exceeds $500, exclusive of costs, the petition is in due fonn, and a bond executed and flled, jurisdiction ceases in the state court and attaches here, and all further proceedings in the state court are eoram non judice. �X Samb— JurnsDicTioN ovek Incidents. �The jurisdictional limitation to $500 has reference to the sum In dispute between the plaintiS and defendant, and the right of applying creditors to corne in and hare their claims adjusted and allowed isa mere incident orer which this court will necessarily exercise jurisdiction. �On Motion to Eemand. �John W. Taylor, for creditora. �George S. Hastings, for defendant in attachmeni �Prestoir Stevenson, tor plaintiff in attachment. �Nixon, D. J. Two writs of foreign attachment were issued ont of the circuit coart of the eounty of Hudson, in favor of the Second National Bank of Paterson, against the New York Silk Manufactur- ing Company, a foreign corporation owning property in New Jersey, — the first on the third of October, and the second on the twenty-ninth of October, 1881, — under which the sheriff of the eounty of Hudson attached and made an inventory of the property of the defendant. Various motions were made in the circuit court to dissolve these at- tachments, to which it is only necessary to refer generally, and all of which were denied by the court. Pending an application for the appointment of an auditor for the sale of the attached property, pe- titions were presented showing proper cases for removal to this court, under the act of Mareh 3, 1875, aecompanied by a bond duly exe- cuted and filed, and followed by appearance to the attachment suits in behalf of the defendant corporation; no objections seem to have been raised to the sufficiency of the petitions and bonds. The attorney for the attaehing creditor procured from the clerk of the cir- cuit court of the eounty of Hudson properly-certified copies of the records of the cases, and caused the same to be filed in this court on the fifteenth of December, 1881. A motion is now made by the party which petitioned for the removal to this court, to remand the cases again to the state court. The notice of the application is eigned by "James B. Vredenburgh, attorney for the defendant," and ��� �