? OCTOBER TEP,,M, 1907. ?dth ?02 U.S. ?, ? ? 6?; A??v. ?N? ? Ra? Co., I ?e? �?e, 1?; $?, A? ?, v. C? Ra? Co.', ? N.?. ?. ?; ? Co. v. ?, 1? ?, 7?; A? ? v. Yam? P? A? Co., 133 M?t?, ?; ? & N? R?y Co. v. C??, 97 Ken?eky, 6?; A? M?. W? D. M?h ?d Mr. M? ?nden?: M?n? ? not the pm?r ?m?y of m?,m? ?ot ? ? ? ?ffo? ?e ? or ?t of e?r; it ? not ?ue ? ? ?ve? i? d?on ?f?g mov? by s defender on the ?d ? controve?y wholly ?tw?n 8ff? of ?e?nt Sm?, th e ?mple? de?in?ffon of w?ch ?n?ve?y, one of ?e pl?s of ?o? ? not ? ?ble or n? ?y. Such s dec,on, ? ?t? ?e j?ieffon ?d ?c?ffon .of the eo?, ?o?d ? ?ew? sf?r ?I jud?ent by sp? or wBt of e?r. Un? ? v. ?, 3 D?I. ? B?, 7 W?11. 3?; Ex ? ?, ? U.S. 418; Ez ? H?, 105 U.S. 578, ?d U.S. 3?, ?d ? cid. Ez ? W?, ? U.S. ?9, ? ?d ?h?. M?. ? Jvs? ?, ?r ? t? fo? ?ment, de?ve? the op?on of the ?. ?e motion to remand pr?n? for de?on the qu?on whether there w? in the ? ? ?ntmve?y wholly ?tw?n citizem of ?fferent S?s, ? the comple? de?i?ffon of w?ch the S? of Neb? w? not sn ?d?ble ?y. If defendant's con?ntion w? ?t, the action ?d ?ve ?n o?lly brought ? the F?eml ?u? ?d ?ion of the ?e w? comple? on ?mov?. The
�
