Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/16

ft FECEBAL BEPOBTEB. �those originally commenced in the federal courts. In cause» removed the federal court muat look to the record not only to ascertain whether it has acquired jurisdiction, but also to determine whether another court of co-ordinate powers has been deprived of it. If, therefore, this application to remove had been made under the provisions of said section 639 of the Eevised Statutes, the insufiiciency of the proceeding to confer jurisdiction upon this court would be very apparent. While the application states it is made under that section, ■we must suppose that this statement was inadvertently made, sinee by that section only the defendant can remove a cause on the ground of the eitizenship of the parties, while, aa already seen, this application is made by the plaintiff. �We will therefore consider the application as made under the aofc of March 3, 1875, which permits a removal upon the application of either party. Does this act, like section 639 of the Eevised Statutes, require that the record shall disolose the eitizenship of the parties at the time of the commence- mont of the suit ? The two statutes, so far as they bear upon this question, are not identical in phraseology, but are, I think, substantially identical in meaning. The language of the former is: "Any suit commenced in any state court �* * * may be removed for trial, ♦ * * when the suit is �* * • by a citizen of the state wherein it is brought, and against a citizen of another state." The language of the lat- ter is : "Any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, now pending or hereafter brought in any state court, * * • in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of dif- ferent states, • * ♦ either party may remove," etc. The words "any suit commenced," in the former act, which have been held by the supreme court to fix the time at which it must appear that the parties were citizens of different states, are identical in meaning with the words "hereafter brought," in the act of 1875. The phrases "any suit commeiiced" and "any suit brought" mean precisely the same thing. And so the language "when the suit is by a citizen of a state wherein it is brought, and against a citizen of another state," found in the former law, must, at least so far as the question now ��� �