160 FBDKBÀIi BEFORTEB. �New Obleans City E. Co. v. Cbescbnt City E. Co. �{Oireuit Court, D. Louiaiana. January, 1881.) �L Rbmotai.— JcRiSDicTioN Bbfoke Retuen-Dat— Dissolution of Ih- JUNOTION. — An application to dissolve an injunction cannot be con- sideredbefore the return-day of a removed cause, where such appli- cation in volved the consideration of the cause as an entirety, and tho dissolution could not have been granted without changing the statu» of the parties with reference to the thing to be flnally adjudged. — [Ed. �In the Matter of Petition of the BarnesvUle <e Moorehead Ry. Co., etc., 1 Fbd. Rbp. 10. �In Equity. Application to Dissolve Injunction. �Carleton Hunt, for plaintiff. �J. M. Bonner, for defendant. �BiLLiNGs, D. J. This cause is before me on an application to dissolve an injunction. The sole question upon which the court is now to pass is whether the court should at this time entertain the application. �The cause was commenced in the state court. An injunc- tion was there obtained, and at the instance of the defendant the plaintiff was then required to give a bond in the sum of $50,000 to compensate the defendant for any damages he might suffer from the injunction in case it should be held to bave been improperly obtained. An application was then made, on the part of the defendant, to substitute a bond for the injunction, according to the practice in the state court, and then, upon the application of the plaintiff, the cause was removed to this court, on the ground that its decision in- volved a construction of the constitution and laws of the United States. �The return-day of the removed cause would be on the third Monday of April next, which is the first day of the next term of this court. �An examination of the statute leads me to the conclusion that, immediately upon the filing of the proper petition and bond in the state court, the cause is jurisdictionally pending ����
