It has been held that the defendant is not in default, because he postpones filing his transcript while he is awaiting the action of the State court upon his petition; although, in consequence, the filing is not made until after the statutory time.22 If a reasonable excuse for the delay exists, leave is usually given to file a transcript after the statutory time.23 Under a previous statute, it was said that the question whether the defendant had a reasonable excuse for his delay in filing the transcript rested in the discretion of the Federal court and would not be reviewed by appeal or writ of error.24 Misinformation from the clerk of the Federal court as to the time when the record should be filed was held to be a sufficient excuse. 25 If the removing party is forced by his adversary to remain in the State court, such adversary waives the statutory requirement as to the time of filing the record, until the State court lets go of its jurisdiction.26 Where but two terms of the Federal court had elapsed subsequent to the removal, and the only excuse for the delay was an affidavit by the defendant's counsel that they and the defendants had paid the clerk for the record and under Fed. 913. Cf. Goldberg, Bowen & Co. v. German Ins. Co., 152 Fed. 831. Contra, Cobb v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co., 3 Hughes 452, Fed. Cas. No. 2,921 (holding that it is sufficient if the record is filed before the first term held in that place in the district nearest to the clerk's office of the State court). 22 Kelly v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 122 Fed. 286. See Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 16, 26 L. ed. 643, 646; Lewis v. Erie R. Co., 257 Fed. 868. Contra, Cobb v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co., 3 Hughes 452, Fed. Cas. No. 2,921; Waverly Stone & G. Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., 239 Fed. 561. 23 Bright v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 214; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 26 L. ed. 643; St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U. S. 212, 216, 27 L. ed. 703, 704; Kidder v. Fetteau, 2 Fed. 616 (1 McCrary 325); Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 650; Hall v. Brooks, 14 Fed. 113 (21 Blatchf. 167); Winchell v. Coney, 27 Fed. 482; Rowell v. Hill, 28 Fed. 433; McGregory v. McGillis, 30 Fed. 388; Lucker v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 66 Fed. 161; Chase v. Erhardt, 198 Fed. 305. 24 McLean v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 8,892 (16 Blatchf. 309); affirmed St. Paul & C. R. Co. v. McLean, 108 U. S. 212, 2 Sup. Ct. 498, 27 L. ed. 703. 25 Burgunder v. Browne, 59 Fed. 497. 26 Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 16, 26 L. ed. 643, 646; Kelly v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 122 Fed. Contra, Hatcher's Adm'x v. Wadley, 84 Fed. 913. 286. stood that it was the clerk's duty to transmit the same; it was held that the laches was inexcusable, and that the cause must be remanded.27 § 554. Proceedings in the State court after the removal. The State court has the power to examine the petition and bond, in order to ascertain whether they are sufficient. If they are insufficient, it may disregard them and proceed with the suit.1 It may do this although the Federal court has acted in the case 2 and even after the latter court has dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, provided that a motion to remand has been denied.4 It is the duty of the State court, and not of the clerk, to determine the sufficiency of the bond.5 Where the question is doubtful, it seems to be the better practice for the State court to take no action until the Federal court has passed upon a motion to remand the cause." But 27 Hatcher's Adm'x v. Wadley, 8 Fed. 913. § 554. 1 Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186, 24 L. ed. 428; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 545, 25 L. ed. 355; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U. S. 185, 24 L. ed. 427; City of Montgomery, Ala. v. Postal Tel.-Cable Co., 218 Fed. 471; Miller v. Soule, 221 Fed. 492; Orr v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 83 Misc. (N. Y.) 221, per Green, J.; affirming Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 195; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Chappell, 206 Fed. 688. 2 Iowa Cent. Ry. v. Bacon, 236 U. S. 305. 8 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Southern Pac. Co. v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168. 6 Stuart v. Bank of Staplehurst, 57 Neb. 569, 575; Kamenicky v. Catteral Printing Co., N. Y. Sup. Ct. Sp. Tm., per Brady, J., N. Y. L. J. August 5 and 16, 1914, in which the author was counsel. Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 474, 25 L. ed. 593, 599; Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U. S. 742, 5 Sup. Ct. 743, 28 L. ed. 115; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 Sup. Ct. 799, 29 L. ed. 962; Tennessee v. Bank of Commerce, 152 U. S. 454, 14 S. Ct. 654, 38 L. ed. 511; Ex parte Grimball, 61 Ala. 598; Ex parte Mobile & O. R. Co., 63 Ala. 349; Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Four Mile Ry. Co., 29 Colo. 90, 66 Pac. 902; Carswell v. Schley, 59 Ga. 17; Indianapolis, B. & W. Ry. Co. v. Risley, 50 Ind. 60; McWhinney v. Brinker, 64 Ind. 360; State ex rel. Jumel v. Johnson, 29 La. Ann. 399; State v. Murray, 47 La. Ann. 1421, 17 South. 832; Jackson V. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 58 Miss. 648; Hickman v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 151 Mo. 644, 52 S. W. 351; Blair v. West Point Mfg. Co., 7 Neb. 146; Trester v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Neb. 242, 36 N. W. 502; Stuart v. Bank of Staplehurst, 57 Neb. 569, 78 N. W. 298; National Docks & its decision is subject to the review of the Federal court.7 If the petition and bond are sufficient, the State court is divested of jurisdiction over the case. It has no power to try questions of fact arising upon the petition, but must accept the facts therein alleged as true. As soon as a sufficient bond and N. J. Junction Connecting Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. (7 Dick.) 58, 28 Atl. 71; Lawson v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 112 N. C. 390, 17 S. E. 169; Bradley v. Railroad Co., 119 N. C. 744; Howard v. Railway Co., 122 N. C. 944, 953, 954, 29 S. E. 778; Debnam v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., 126 N. C. 831, 65 L.R.A. 915, 36 S. E. 269; State v. Southern Pac. Co., 23 Or. 424; Williams v. Adkins, 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 615; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. McAllister, 59 Tex. 349. But see Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 85 Ga. 728, 11 S. E. 845; Robertson v. Kettell, 64 N. H. 430, 14 Atl. 78. It has been held: that an acceptance and approval of the bond and petition cannot be reviewed by another judge, except upon a motion to set the same aside. Occum Co. v. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 35 Conn. 496. 7 Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485, 26 L. ed. 354; Field v. Lownsdale, Fed. Cas. No. 4,769 (Deady, 288); United States v. Judges, Fed. Cas. No. 15,501; Taylor v. Rockefeller, Fed. Cas. No. 13,802; Traders' Bank v. Tallmadge, 9 Fed. 363 (20 Blatchf. 39); Walker v. O'Neill, 38 Fed. 374; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 88 Fed. 803; Brodhead V. Shoemaker, 85 Ga. 728, 11 S. E. 845; Louisiana State Bank V. Morgan (Louisiana), 4 Mart. (N. S.) 344; Fornerook Mfg. Co. v. Barnum Wire & I. Works, 54 Mich. 552, 20 N. W. 582; Jack son v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 58 Miss. 648; National Union Bank v. Dodge, 42 N. J. Law (13 Vroom.) 316; Bell v. Dix, 49 N. Y. 232; Chamberlain v. American Nat. Life & Trust Co. (New York), 11 Hun 370; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. McMullen, 86 Wis. 501, 56 N. W. 629. 8 Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513, 7 Sup. Ct. 1262, 30 L. ed. 1159; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298, 11 Sup. Ct. 306, 34 L. ed. 963; affirming 88 Tenn. (4 Pickle) 721, 13 S. W. 698; Sinclair v. Pierce, 50 Fed. 851; Powers v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 65 Fed. 92, 18 Sup. Ct. 264, 42 L. ed. 673; : Fidelity Trust & Safety-Vault Co. v. Newport News & M. V. Co., 70 Fed. 403; Shane v. Butte Electric Ry. Co., 150 Fed. 801; Stix v. Keith, 90 Ala. 121, 7 South. 423; Horan v. Strachan, 82 Ga. 566, 9 S. E. 429; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hudgins, 107 Ga. 334, 33 S. E. 442; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Horack, 9 Ill. App. 309; Van Horn v. Litchfield, 70 Iowa 11, 29 N. W. 783; Byson v. McPherson, 71 Iowa 437, 32 N. W. 418; Hardwick v. Kean, 95 Ky. 563, 26 S. W. 589; Guinault v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 52, 7 South. 62; Craven v. Turner, 82 Maine 383, 19 Atl. 864; Roberts v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 521, 51 N. W. 478; Town of Monroe v. Connecticut River Lumber Co., 66 N. H. 628, 32 petition are filed and presented, all subsequent action by the State court is void. A subsequent judgment of the State court Atl. 152. Contra, Orosco v. Gagliardo, 22 Cal. 83; Delaware R. Const. Co. v. Davenport & St. P. Ry. Co., 46 Iowa 406; Burch V. Davenport & St. P. R. Co., 46 Iowa 449; Dunne v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 35 Minn. 73, 27 N. W. 448; Disbrow v. Driggs, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 346; 8 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 305, note; Miller v. Kent, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 451; Levy v. O'Neil (New York), 14 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 63; Clark v. Opdyke (New York), 10 Hun 383; Southern Pac. Co. v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168. 9 Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485, 26 L. ed. 354; National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 Sup. Ct. 58, 27 L. ed. 87; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 Sup. Ct. 799, 29 L. ed. 962; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556, 16 Sup. Ct. 389, 40 L. ed. 536; Matthews v. Lyall, Fed. Cas. No. 9,285 (6 McLean 13); U. S. v. Judges, Fed. Cas. No. 15,501; State v. Tiedermann, 10 Fed. 20 (3) McCrary 399); Wellman v. Howland Coal & Iron Works, 19 Fed. 51; McCullough v. Large, 20 Fed. 309; North Carolina v. Sullivan, 50 Fed. 593; Shepherd v. Bradstreet Co., 65 Fed. 142; Wills v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 65 Fed. 532; Monroe v. Williamson, 81 Fed. 977; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 88 Fed. 803; Miller v. Soule, 221 Fed. 493; Webb v. Southern Ry. Co., 235 Fed. 78; Indianapolis, B. & W. Ry. Co. v. Risley (Indiana), 50 Ind. 60, Wilson, 572; Rosenfield v. Adams Exp. Co., 21 La. Ann. 233; Stanley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 62 Mo. 508; Beery v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 533; Powell v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 544; Winslow v. Collins, 110 N. C. 119, 14 S. E. 512; Blair v. West Point Mfg. Co., 7 Neb. 146; National Union Bank v. Dodge, 42 N. J. Law (13 Vroom.) 316; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 149; Bell v. Dix, 49 N. Y. 232; Shaft v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 544, 23 Am. Rep. 138; Benedict v. Dixon, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. (15 J. & S.) 477; Erisman v. Pidcock, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 327; Bushnell v. Parker Bros. & Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 625, 13 N. Y. Supp. 695; State v. Dunlap, 65 N. C. 491, 6 Am. Rep. 746 (after removal under the civil rights law); Shelby v. Hoffman, 7 Ohio St. 450; Richardson v. Jenks (Ohio), 47 N. E. 49; Hall v. Stevenson, 19 Oregon 153, 23 Pac. 887; Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. Sun Fire Office of London, 36 S. C.. 213, 15 S. E. 562; Williams v. Adkins, 46 Tenn. (6 Coldw.) 615; Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 73 Tex. 103, 11 S. W. 168; City of Ashland v. Whitcomb, 121 Wis. 646, 98 N. W. 531. It has been held: that, after a removal, the State court may allow the substitution of a new delivery bond for that formerly filed, and the withdrawal of the former bond (Ramsey v. Coolbaugh, 13 Iowa 164); that it may modify its former order of discontinuance as to part of the defendants, so as to preserve their rights upon an injunetion bond given by the plaintiff (Benedict v. Dixon, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. (15 J. & S.) 379); and that, after removal, an appeal will lie is a nullity.10 An amendment reducing the same claim below. the jurisdictional amount was allowed in a State court, after the defendant's counsel had stated to the court that he had a petition for a removal; but the paper had not been formally presented nor filed.11 A Federal court approved the continuance after the removal of the publication of a notice entitled in the State court which was required to perfect an attachment when the record was not filed in the former court until the publication had been completed.12 It has been held: that the State court cannot set aside its order of removal after it has been made.13 That the State court has not even the power to enter judgment for the costs of an appeal to the State Appellate Courts, and a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, which resulted in a reversal of its order denying the removal.14 That a defendant may raise, by answer, from a prior order discharging a and discontinuance of the suit in the Federal court, the State court enforced the attorney's lien, Oishei v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 117 App. Div. (N. Y.) 110. 10 Buxton v. Pennsylvania Lumber Co., 221 Fed. 718. 11 Mullin V. Blumenthal (Delaware), 39 Atl. 991, supra, § 6. 12 Lowitz v. Kimmerle, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 857. 13 Livermore v. Jenks, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 479; Chamberlain v. American Nat. Life & Trust Co., 11 Hun (N. Y.) 370. See Occum Co. v. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 35 Conn. 496; Winchell v. Coney, 54 Conn. 24, 5 Atl. 354; Thatcher v. Rankin (New York), 2 How Pr. (N. S.) 459. Contra, Larson v. Cox, 39 Kansas 631, 18 Pac. 892; Lamblin v. Cox, 40 Kansas 311, 19 Pac. 709; Seth v. Chamberlaine, 41 Md. 196; Lalor v. Dunning, 56 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 209; Henderson v. Cabell, 83 Tex. 541. 14 National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, C. C. A., 82 Fed. 240. |