Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/764

752 FBDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �the Btate court and the petition for removal, taken together, the jurisdiction of the circuit court did not appear, The same course was taken in Bible Society v. Grave, 101 U. S. 610, and in JifUns v.Sweetzer, 1 Morrison's Transcript, 109. The question of jurisdiction was not left to be tried at the formai trial of issues raised by the pleadings. The question to be determined on this motion is whether the record before this court shows jurisdiction or a want of jurisdiction. �In Gold Washing Go. v. Keyes, above cited, it is said : "For the purposes of the transfer of a cause, the petition of re- moval, which the statute requires, performs the office of plead- ing. Upon its statements, in connection with the other parts of the record, the court must act in deolaring the law upon the question it presents." Again : "The record in the state court, which includes the petition for removal, should be in such a condition when the removal takes place as to show jurisdic- tion in the court to which it goes. If it is not, and the omission is not afterwards supplied, the suit must be remanded. " Cer- tainly the petition in this case shows a remarkable case un- der the act of 1876, because it avers that the allegations of the complaint respecting G. S. Mallory are untrue, and that he bas not and never bas had any interest in the subject- matter of the suit. Even taking into view the complaint with the petition, it does not appear that this court bas not jurisdiction of the suit. For the purposes of a removal, the allegations of the removing party in the petition must, at this stage of the case, prevail, and the suit must, for the present, be retained in this court. ��� �