Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/533

This page needs to be proofread.

that court, and he is, equally with the defendant, precluded from making objection to ito jurisdiction. Special reliance is placed by petitioner upon this statement in the W/?ner ca?e (p. 460): "But it is contended that BeardsIcy was entitled to re- move the ease to the Circuit Court, and as by his petition for removal he waived the .objeetien so far as he was personally concerned that he was not sued in his district, hence that the Circuit Court obtained jurisdiction over the suit. This does not follow, inasmuch as in view of the intention of' Congress by the act of 1887 to contract the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, and of the limitations imposed thereby, jurisdiction of the suit could not have obtained, even with the consent of both parties." It is said that here is a distinct declaration that "jurisdic- tion of the suit could not have obtained, even with the consent of both parties." There was no pretense of any consent on the part of the plaintiff in that case, and therefore this state- ment was unnecessary. In order, however, to prevent future misconception we add that nothing in the opinion in the W/gr?r ca?e is to be regarded as changing the rule as to the effect of a waiver in respect to a particular court. It may not be amiss to note that in several of the Circuit Courts and Courts of Appeal the W/sr? case has been con- sidered, and in all held that no change was intended by it. Cormin M. Company v. H?nrici Wasl?r Company, opinion by Lowell, Circuit Judge, 151 Fed. Rep. 938; Lou/sv//k & Nash- ville Railroad Company v. F/sh?r, 155 Fed. Rep. 68, Circuit Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit), opinion by Lurten, Circuit Judge; $hanb?rg v. F. & C. Co., Circuit Court of Appeals (Eighth Circuit), opinion by Riner, District Judge; McPhee & Mc(?'nnity Company v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Circuit Court of Appeals (Eighth Circuit), opinion by Sanborn, Circuit Judge. These two opinions are not yet published. We might also refer to the several text benks in which is affu?ed tSe general doctrine of the effect of the waiver of an