Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/217

M. Y. SILK MANUf'g CO. V. SECOND NAT. BANK OF PATEBSON. 205 �etates that the motion is founded "upon all the proceedings had m the cases, and upon the annexed rule." Appended to the notice ap- pears a certified copy of a rule made by the judge of the state court, on the thirty-first of December, 1881, authorizing the defendant corpo- ration to withdraw the appearance to the attachment suits as im- providently and irregularly entered. I have cOnsidered the argu- ments of counsel, and examined the case with care, and find nothing in the proceedings or in the order of the state judge, setting aside the appearance of the defendant to the attachment, which would justify me in granting this motion. �The suit is clearly within the class of cases 'where removal is au- thorized by the acts of congress. The parties are citizens of dif- ferent states. The matter in dispute exceeds $500, exclusive of costs. The petition is in due form, and no complaint has been made against the validity or security of the bond. The petition was signed by the defendant and presented to the state court, and a bond exe- cuted and filed for no other purpose than to transfer the case from that court to this, and jurisdiction ceased there and attached here as soon as these steps were taken. This has been the general tendency and resuit of the judicial construction of the removal statutes, both in the state courts and in the courts of the United States, for some yeara past. Judge Dillon, in his excellent treatise on Kemoval of Causes, § 15, says: �"If the case be within the act of congress and the petition is in due form, accompanied with the offer of the required aurety or bond, the statute is that the state court must accept the surety, or the petition and the bond, and pro- ceed no further in the case. Under such circumstances the state court has no power to refuse the removal, and can do nothing to aifect the right, and its rightful jurisdiction ceases eo instanti. No order for the removal is nec- essary, and every subsequent exercise of jurisdiction by the state court, in- cluding its judgment, if one is rendered, is erroneous. And if the right of removal has once been perfect, it eannot be taken away by subsequent amend- ment in the state or federal court," etc. �The last utterance of the supreme court on this subject, to which my attention has been called, is found in the case of Baltimore dsQMo R. Co. V. Koontz. The opinion of the court was delivered by the chlef justice on October 31, 1881, and is reported in the Albany Law Jour- nal of December 17, 1881. It is there distinctly held that the juris- diction changes when the removal is demanded in proper form; that it is transferred from the state to the federal court; and that all questions relating to the fact of removal are to be determined by the last-named court. ��� �