exhibition of 1889. The two boats were lying near the foot of Wall street, between the steamer Despatch, which had the President and his Cabinet on board, and the New York shore, waiting to see the disembarkation Of the President from the Despatch. The tug-boat was lying ther up the river than the ferry-boat; both vessels lying bows up the river. .The case turns upon the question whether the collision was caused by the ferry-boat moving up the river against the stern of the tug, lying still. ahead of her, or by the tug backing down upon the bow of the Maine, lying still astern of her. Upon this question a great number of witnesses have been called by each side,-some 27 in all, I believe; and I cannot doubt that the clear weight .of the evidence is in favor of the position. wken by the ferry-boat, that the collision was caused by the baciking down of the tug upon the Maine, and not by the Maine's movingup against the tug. Let the libel be dismissed, with costs.
THE LAGONDA. 1 THE JAMES
. McOALDIN 11. THE LAGONDA.
MATHISEN'tI. THE JAMES
(DLstrWt Oourt, E. D. New York. May 12,1890.)
COLLISION-CROSSING COURSES-FAILURE TO HOLD COURSE.
The yachtL.was going down Buttermilk channel between Governor's Island and thlt Brooklyn shore, when the tug G. came around,the south shore of Governor's island, bound for the Atlantic basin. The :vesselsbeing thus on crossing courses, and the L. bound by rule to keep outofthe way, the G., after hearing a signal of one whistle from the L" and obServing that the yac1),t porting. starboarded her wheel, The vessels collided. the bow of the yacht striking the starboard side of the tug. Held that, under the circumstances, it was the duty of the G. to hold her course. and that she was responsible for the collision.
',tt,lJfedJf. Porter, Jr.,' and R. D. Benedict, for the Lagonda.
Goodrich, Deady.& Goodrich, for the James A. Garfield·
Cross-actions for damages by collision.
. lJENEPlci, J. The vessels were on crossing courses. The yacht having the tug upon her starboard side, by the law it was the right of the yacht to choose her own method of avoiding the tug, and it was the duty of the tug to hold her course. The tug's testimony, if beshows that she undertook to designate a·course to the yacht by blowing two whistles, and she admits that after she had received a signal of one whistle from tile yacht, and saw that the yacht was porting, she st!1rbo1i.rded, and kept up her speed. . In this way she caused the coll'isioh:' It is plain that the tug' aloue is .responsible for the damage that ensued. Let a decree be entered accordingly.
by Edward G. BilDOOlct, Esq:. of t.he New York bar.
SPANGLER t7. ATCHISON, T. &1: S. F. R.
T. & S. F. R.
(Circuit Court. W. D. Missouri, W. D. May 5, 1800.)
REMOVAL OF CAUSES-TIME OF ApPLICATION.
Act Congo Aug. 13,1888, § 3, (25 U. S. St. at Large, 485,) provides that a petition for removal must be filed at or before the time the defendant is required to plead "by the laws of the state, or the rules of the state court. It Rev. St. Mo. § 3514, requires the defendant to plead on or before the third day of the term, "unless longer time be granted by the court. It Held, that such a petition could not be filed after the third day of the term, though the defendant's time for answering had been extended by order of court, since such an order is not a rule of court, within the meaning of said act. An action for a tort against two railroad companies,"'-One a lessor and the other a lessee,--being joint and several, may be removed by one of the defendants on the ground of non-residence, though the other defendant is a resident of the same state as the plain titr.
At Law. On motion to remand. Da.1Jis & Snyder, J. M. (tockett, and Hawley & Sneu, for plaintiff. Lathrop, Smith & Morrow, for defendant. PHIJ,IPS, J. This action was brought in the circuit court of Jackson county, Mo., returnable to the October term, 1889. Under the state statute (section 3514) the defendants were required to answer by the 16th day of October, 1889, which was the third day of the term. On the first day of the term the defendant the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company appeared, and, by an ex parte order of the court, the time for answering was extended to the 1st day of November following. On the 30th day of October the defendant filed answer, and presented petition and bond for a removal to this court, which order was then made. Plaintiff files her motion toremand on two grounds: First, that the petition for removal was not presented in time; and, second, because the action is against two defendants, one of whom is a resident of the state and district with the plaintiff, and the cause of action is not severable. The defendant the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company bases its right of removal, at the time it was made, on the following sections of the state and federal statutes: "In all counties having over forty thousand inhabitants, every defendant who shall be summoned or notified according to law shall demur to or answer the petition on or before the third day of the term at which he is bound to answer, unless longer time be granted by the court," etc. Section 3514, Rev. Bt. Mo. Section 3 of the act of March 3, 1887, as amended August 13, 1888, (25 U. S. St. at Large, 435,) declares that such petition for removal must be filed "at the time, or any time before, the defendant is required by .the laws of the state, or the rule of the state court in which such suit is brought, to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff." It is conceded by counsel for defendant, as it must be, that, but for the order of the court extending the time for answering, the application for. removal came too late on the 30th of October, as that was not the v.42F.no.6-20