Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/210

 196 FEDKBAL BSFOBTSB. �It might well happen that differences would arise, between the bridge company and the several railway companies in the adjustment of the details for regulating the use of the bridge, its maehinery, and approaches, — difference as to precedence, time, and amount of use by the several companies; differences in the measure of equality meted out, — when a resort to the court might be expedient to deteimine what terms and conditions would secure complete equality between the parties; and it is reasonable to suppose that eontingency was antici- pated bycongress and designed to bemet by the grant of jurisdiction to this court. Such is the interpretation that must now prevail. �It is much to be regretted that the parties have been subjected to the burden of litigating the whole controversy presented by the plead- iQgs, wben, if the view which is now entertained had prevailed earlier in the progress of the case, that burden would not have been imposed. It may, however, afford them some sligbt satisfaction to know that the court bas also been subjected to no inconsiderable labor in consid- ering the testimony and reaching conclusions upon the whole con- troversy; and that it was not uatil these conclusions were being formally stated, in order that th© parties might know the reasons which led to them, that the court beoame convinced that the true interpretation of the aot of congress had been misconceived. �As the only controversy between the parties relates to the compen- sation which shall be paid by the petitioner, the case is not pre- sented to which the jurisdiction conferred by the act of congress at- taches. �The petition is dismissed with costs. ���Whebleb V. LivBEPOOL, LoNDON & Globb Ins. Go. (Circuit Court, D. New Hampehire. June 6, 1881.) �Pbactice— Act of 1875 — Constrtjotiok — Rbmoval — Fiest Tekm. �A rule of the supreme court of New Hampshire provides that, unless 30 days before the beginning of the term the plaintifE has given to the defendant notice in writing to be prepared for trial, the defendant shall be entitled to a contin- tiance at the flrst term, upon satisfying the court by affldavit that he has prob- able ground of defence, and that he intends, in good faith, to try the case. The plaintifif has a similar right. �In this cause the defendant has a defence, and Intends, in good faith, to try it. He was not asked to flle an affldavit, and flled none. It is not usual to require one. Neither party gave the notice of trial 30 days before the beginning of the term. The cause was continued at the first term. At the next term, the defendant asked to have the cause removed to this court. ��� �