Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/359

 BLACEWELL V. BBAUM. 351 �and this duty was performed up to the time when the îce-barge ran into her. �No fanlt on the part of the tug adriatio contribated to the collision. �From these conclusions it results that the owners of the ferry-boat are entitled to recover tbeir damages of the ice- barge Fitch. A decree will therefore be entered to that effect in the first ^entitled cause, with an order of reference to ascer- tain the amount. �A similar decree will be entered in favor of the libellant in the second suit. �In each of the suits the libel against the Adriatio will be dismissed with costs. ���EiiAOKWELii and another v. Bbaun and another» �ÇDietrid Court, D. Maryland. January 16, 1880.) �Removjll op Oatjsb— Aot March 3, 1875. — The words, "at the term at which said cause could be first tried," cont^iaed in tho act of March 3, 1875, relating to the removal of causes, held to mean, " the flrst term at which the pleadings were in condition for trial ; that is to say, -when the Issues were made up." Oumee v. Gounty of Brunsieiefe, 1 Hughes, 270, followed. �Bond, J. This is a motion to remand the cause removed from the circuit court of Baltimore city, under the aot of March 3, 1875. We agree with the counsel of complainant that the case, the legality of the removal of which we are now to determine, is that case which is made by the amended bill and answer. This amended bill was filed January 26, 1876, and the amended answer was filed on February Oh, and the replication on the twenty-fourth of February, in the same year. The motion to remove was made March 27, 1879. Three years had elapsed since the cause was at issue ; noth- ing more had to be done to the cause. It was ready for hearing. It might have been heard on bill and answer at any term during the whole of three years, but the parties were ��� �