St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-03-16
nIssHNTINa nPINInN.


This action was pending I'm the district
court for Ramsey county. The defendant,
under Section $50, Revised Statutes U. s.
(see Sims vs.. Sims, II Beaten, 3Ss), season
ably filed petition, bond and aSidRvit OF
local prejudice, all in due form CUl-
for the purpose OF removing the
case to the proper circuit court OF tho United
States The petition, which WAS verified,
stated that the plnintin was at the time of
the announcement OF the action and then a
citizen OF Minnesota. and the defendant "A
citizen Of Iowa. To controvert the state
ment that he WAS citizen OF Minnesota lin
which this action was brought) plaintiff In
troduced an Affidavit stating that 10 was a
citizen OF the territory or Montana.
The district Judge received the s6davit
holding upon the authority OF Railway Com
pRny VS.. Ramsey, % Wallace, 32s, that the
allegation OF diverse citizenship in the petit
tion being thus denied IL was for defendant
TO prove them and in the absence or such
proof he declined to accept the security Of
fered and TO allow the case 20 be removed but
proceeded with the trial. This is an appeal
from the Judgment upon a verdict for plain
TIL. Section $50 provides THAI In order for
removal the petitioner must at the time OF
filing his petition OTTER in the state court
good and sufficient surety" for his entering
In the circuit court copies OF the
previous plSadlngs etc. in the state court
and that 'it shall thereupOn be the duty OF
the state court 10 accept the surety and to
proceed no further in the case against the
petitioner" The effect of this and Of similar
provisions IN other removal acts Is that it 2p-
pears from the records OF which the petit
toner forms part that the case Is one for
removal within the provisions OF the act
under which removal is sought the petitioner
is upon proper procedure Qn this case upon
Cling proper petition bond aud AFFIDAVIT OF
preiudice) entitled 10 the removal as of
nf ans.c
ceases co instRnts. No contest ss to the
truth or the facts appearing upon the
record and in which the Applicant on
for removal is based can be had in the state
court. Without entering into any considera-
ton Of reasons for or against these proposi-
tons shall content myself with citing upon
this question or preceuent the following au-
thorities: Dillon on Removal OF Actions
third edition, sections 75, 76, "a, Sc, 81. and
notes; Butterhsld vs.. Home Insurance Com
pany, IL Minnesota, 4l0; Hatch vs.. Railway
Company, Blatchtord, los; Fisk Va. Union
Pacific Railway Company, 6 Blatchford. SO;
Stevens VS.. Richardson, 20 Blatchford, 53;
Shaft VS.. p. NJ. l.. /. Co, 81 New York 544 !;
Mix VI. Andes Insurance Company, "A New
York, 50; Stone VS.. Sargent, l2g Massacbu-
sets, SOB; Danvers Bank vs.. Thompson. 1873
Massachusetts, lS2: Clark VS.. St Paul Rail-
way Company, ii Federal Reporter, $50; Mil
Ter VS.; Tobin, Is Federal Reporter, 6Oe.
Judge VS.. Anderson, 10 Fed Rep, $50:
Emey VS.. Com. +. ms. Co., "a Fed. Rep. 65;
Cobb VS.. Globe NJ. L. ms. Co.. HuKhs, I54; ;
Dennis VS.. County Of Alschna, Woods, 6sS;
Connor vs.. Scott, Dillon, 242; Ohee. Vs.
G. * n. w. Il. Co., 81 Iowa. 500: Ellerman, VS..
X. Co, Woods, I20; Texas We. st. Louis R'y
C.. NcCrsry, S4s; ClippinSer We. Ins. Co.,
l Flippin, 45e: Spear, Fed, judiciary, age
5l6-ls: Taylor ~. Rocharsller, Is Am. Law
Reg. Q. S; Kansas vs.. Martin, Is Howard
l9s; R'y Co. VS.. Ramsey, - Wallace S22
As 10 the remarks OF c. J. Waite in this
case, with reference TO sustaining petition
by proof, soc Dillon on Renewals, W, 80
notes, Ins. Law Revised, U. S. 2se, and ex-
parts Grunball 81 Ala, SOS. Ins. Co. VS..
Peckner, 90 Z. s., 1853. Gold Washing Co.
VS.. ksyss, 90 L. S., 10: Rem vs. Hinde-
koper, los Q. s., 4s5; R'y Co. va. Koontz,
l04 q. s., 5; S. S. Co. W. Fsrgerson. IO6 U.
s., lis; Nc i L. NJ. Z. Co. vs.. Swan, III U
s., 81; Ayers vs.. Watson. 1ls L. g., 596:
Street Il. Co. va. Hart. ia L. s., s54.
II do not entirely miEspprshsnd the tenor
OF these authorities, the trial court should
have yielded TO the application for removal
and proceeded no further in the case The
removal proceedings ousted il OF Jurisdiction
so that Hr<-@A4lins With ala i-iAl "a AoA~A