HAROLD V. mON SILVER MIN. CO.
HAROLD'll. IRON SILVER MIN.
(Oircuit Court, D. Oolorado. January 4, 1888.)
REMOVAL OF CAUSES-DISTRICT WHERE SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT-ACT OF MARCH
3, 1887. Ap. action wae brought in a state court of Colorado, in which the plaintiff was an alien, and the defendant a New York corporation. On application to docket the cause in the United States circuit court for the district of Colorado, held that, under the act of 1887, (24 St. 552,) which provides that a suit between citizens of diJi'erent states shall be brought only in district where either the plaintiff or defendant resides, the case was not transferable.
Application to Docket Case. . The plaintiff, Mary Harold,. brought suit in the. district court of Colorado for Lake county against the Iron Silver Mining Company for damages. Defendant made application to said court to remove the cause to the United states circuit court, which was denied. Defendant then applied to the United States circuit court for leave to docket said cause. Charles D. May, for plaintiff. , Frank W. Owens, for defendant. HALLETT, J. Plaintiff brought suit in the district court of I.A1ke county for damages resulting from the death of her son through defendant's negligence, while the son was at work in defendant's mine. The suit is founded on lit statute of the Alleging that it is a New Yorkeorporatib'n, and that plaintlffis a citizen of Great Britain, residing in Ireland,:defendant applied in apt time· to the district court to remove the in(o this court, arid the petition was denied. Defendant now asks to docket the case in this court, and to proceed with it here as properly within: thejurisdiction of this court. The question is whether a suit between an alien, residing abroad, and a citizen of New York, may be removed from a court of the state into this court on petition of defendant. In Mining 00. v. Markell, ante, 386, it was held that under the act of 1887, (24 St. 552,) a suit between citizens of different states may be brought only in the district where the plaintiff' resides, or where the defendant resides. The same limitation appears to be applicable to a suit between an alien and a citizen of a state. As neither the plaintiff nor defendant is a citizen or resident of the state of Colorado, this court has not jurisdiction of the case. Tbe petition to remove was properly denied in the district court of the state, and the application to docket the cause in tbis court must be denied. The circuit judge concurs. v.38F.no.8-34
JOHNSTON, t1. 'l)IPPE. 1
((}ircuit (Jourl, N. D. Georgia.
December 19, 1887.)
JURISDIOTION-FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS-AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSy-AMEND' MENT.' ' "
Where a bill for thespecillc performance of a contract for the sale of land Is silent respecting the value oHM land in controversy, except that, in the contract sought to be enforced, ft$ price orvalue is fixed at $1.000, an amendment alleging that the present value of the land 18$3,000 brings the controversy, as' to amount, within the jurisdictional limits of the circuit court, as fixed by the act of March 8.1887.
A written agreement to convey land at the option of the proposed vendee. within a given time and at a certain price, if made upon a sufficient considerthe optlol;1 ation, with, full knowledge 01;1 tb,e part of the that he is 'bound and the other party is not; is such R contract as, though lacking il;1 mutuality of remedy, willbe enforced in equity at the instance of the propol\ed vendee. When the party holding the option signifies his acceptance witb.inthe time limited, and upon tbe.terms stated, of the contract becomes mutual, and capable of enforcement at the instance of either party.I" ' . ; '
In Equity. Bill for specific perfot:IOanc'e by ston against R.;B. Trippe, dllfeud.nt. On demurrer. G. A. HQ'Well, for complainant. Hopkiruf& Glenn, for , NEWMA:N) ,enforce the
by complainant against certain conditional Qr conThe bill, after stating some correspondence arid negotiation between defendant, relative to, the sale, of certain IImd iIi White ,county, by the the' former, alleges that in january', 1887, defendant prepareda,nd executed the written instrument: '" "Georuia,',Ui.tlton Oounty, .This wi4tesseLh, that t1).e signed R. J;J:. Trippe, of said state a1id COI,mty, agrees that if said J. Lamp Johnston. of Charleston,S. C., or anyone for him, pays or causes to be paid to'the said R.B; Trippe, one thousand dollars, on tir p!iforeJaIiuar,Y20, 1888, that the sailtR. B. Trippe, forhimself,his heirs and assigns, covenants and agrees that he will make to, the said Johnston, good and sufficient title to lots ,of land num,l>ers J! a,nd 25, in 3d jlil\trict, White cO\lnty; said state. ,And it is further agreed that if a. draft ·for $5().OO this, day drawn byR. B. rrjppe, w;ith this optionllorid' attached, ispaid at sight, theil, R. B. Trippe will make said title, it nine hundred andftfty dollarS is paid him on or before January 20, 18l:l8';ihaidsunis of money are not paid within the time mentioned, that is, $50.00 on sight draft and $950.00 witIlin twelvemonths from this date, then this bond to be null and void; and it is understood that if the balance of one thousand dollars (i. e., $950.00) is 1l0t paid by January 20, 1888, the $50.00
'rhis is a bill
IReported by W. A. Wimbish, Esq., of the Atlanta bar. That equity will not specifically enforce a contract wanting in definiteness or mutUality, see Bourget v. Monroe). (Mich.) 25 N. W. Rep. 5141. Hall v. Loomis, (Mich.) 30 N. W. Rep. 874' Moses v. MClJlil.in. (Ala.) 2 South. Rep. 741; Recknagle v. Schmalz, (Iowa,) S8 N. W.Rep.S65; Durkee v. Cota, (Cal.) 16 Pac. Rep. 5; Fogg v. Price, (Mass.) 14 N. :m. Rep. 741.