Court Opinion

ID: 8309236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:46:02.230708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:39.470129
License: Public Domain

McCrary, C. J.
In this case there is a motion to remand on the ground that the bond accepted by the state court to secura the filing of the transcript in this court, and the payment of *389any costs that might arise because of the wrongful removal, is not such a bond as the statute requires. We are of opinion that the jurisdiction of this court in a case removed from a state court does not depend upon the form, nor even upon the substance, of the bond which is presented to and approved by the state court before removal. If the statute in other respects is complied with, and a copy of the record is filed here in accordance with the statute, the removal is complete. But, upon looking into this record, we observe what counsel seem to have overlooked—the petition for the removal of the cause into this court is in the present tense. It states that the defendants are residents of another state. Under the judiciary act of 1789 the supreme court has held that the record must show the citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the action. In a case recently decided in St. Louis, where Justice Miller was present in court, it was held that the same rule prevails under the act of 1875, and that the petition for removal under that act must also show the citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the action, and not at the time of the application for removal. On that ground, therefore, this case must be remanded. Although the motion does not present that question, the court is bound as to that jurisdictional matter, and to take notice of it without any formal motion.
Note. See Curtin v. Decker, supra.