confers exclusive jurisdiction of such a suit upon the State court. 29 A suit instituted on petition for executory process on a title importing a confession of judgment where defendant has filed a denial of plaintiff's right, citizenship and necessary amount being conceded, is removable, 30 A suit to recover property acquired by the defendant solely as receiver of a national bank under direction of the comptroller of the currency, is removable.31

1 Gold Washing etc. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199.

2 Wilder v. Union Nat. Bank, 12 Ch. L. N. 75.

3 State v. Bowen, 8 Rich. N. S. 382.

4 Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4; S. C., 3 Sawy. 553; Trafton v. Nougues, Sawy. 178.

5 Patterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465; S. C., 98 U. S. 403.

6 Charter Oak Co. v. Star Ins. Co., 6 Blatchf. 208.

7 Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 136; S. C., Hemp. 692.

8 Pettus v. Georgia R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 620.

9 Barney v. Globe Rank, 5 Blatchf. 107; Sayles v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 212.

10 Keith v. Levi, 2 Fed. Rep. 743.

11 Washington Imp. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 5 Dill. 489.

12 Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125. But see Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; 14 Wall. 254; Craigie v. McArthur, 4 Dill. 474; S. C., 15 Alb. L. J. 161; 4 Cent. L. J. 137; 9 Ch. L. N. 156.

13 Craigie v. McArthur, 4 Dill. 474; S. C., 16 Alb. L. J. 120; 4 Cent. L. J. 273; 9 Ch. L. N. 156.

14 Charter Oak F. Ins. Co. v. Star Ins. Co., 6 Blatchf. 208.

15 Broadway Bank v. Adams, 130 Mass. 43

16 Upton v. New Jersey S. R. R. Co., 25 N. J. Eq. 372.

17 Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137.

18 Hatch v. Preston, 1 Biss. 19.

19 Barrow v. Hunton, 90 U. S. 80.

20 Watson v. Boudurant, 2 Woods, 166; S. C., 3 Cent. L. J. 398.

21 Scott v. Clinton & S. R. R. Co., 6 Biss. 529; S. C. 8 Ch. L. N. 210.

22 Boudurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 281.

23 Boudurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 281.

24 In re Iowa & M. Const. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 799.

25 Shumway v. Chicago & Iowa R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 385; Fasnacht v Frank; 23 Wall. 416.

26 Berrian v. Chetwood, 9 Fed. Rep. 678.

27 Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Elatchf. 107.

28 Weher v. Humphreys, 5 Dill. 223; Smith v. St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co., 3 Tenn. Ch. 355; S. C. 4 Cent. L. J. 533.

29 Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96; 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J., 322; Hess v. Rey uolds, 113 U. S. 73.

30 Lockhart v. Morey, 31 Fed. Rep. 497.

31 Sowles v. Witters, 43 Fed. Rep. 700.

§ 93 g. Proceedings in the nature of suits are removable.-A proceeding, though special in its form, for the confirmation of a tax title, being in its nature but the application of a well-known chancery remedy, is removable; or a proceeding before commissioners appointed to appraise land, when transferred to a State court by appeal from their award, becomes a suit at law;2 or a proceeding in a Massachusetts court under the Massachusetts statute for the appointment of commissioners and the assessment of damages for the diversion of the water of a stream is a suit of a civil nature, within the Removal Acts.3 Condemnation proceedings under State statutes may be removed to the Federal court where the parties are citizens of different States, for the sole purpose of computing the value of the land taken,* an appeal from an assessment of the value of land condemned for public use,5 but an appeal from an assessment for taxation is not a suit removable into the circuit court. An appeal from the decision of county commissioners on a claim against a county is a suit.7 Proceedings by a creditor against the estate of his deceased debtor is a suit.8 A claim against an estate, pending an appeal from the decision of the commissioners appointed by the probate court, is not removable under the Act of 1867.9 The fact that the claim is legal, as distinguished from equitable, has no bearing on the question of the right of removal. 10 The right of removal is confined to civil actions, and does not extend to criminal prosecutions. 12 So an action of delt upon a recognizance by a State against an alien cannot be removed, as it is of a criminal nature;13 and an action of tort against several defendants for a conspiracy cannot be removed by part of them under the Acts of 1866 or 1867;14 nor under the act to 1875.15 An action of ejectment is removable, 16 or an action of replevin."7 An action commenced by attachment is removable, though defendant disputes the attachment only;18 so of a foreign attachment. 19 A case instituted to recover damages for death caused by a wrongful act is removable, 20 or an appeal to a State court from an assessment for land taken under the law of eminent domain;21 or a proceeding by strangers to an estate against a devisee to annul a will;22 or a claim on appeal against a public corporation. 23 An action

DESTY REMOVALS.-16.

brought to establish a lost will is removable;21 or a suit to annul a will, or to recall a decree admitting it to probate;25 but a proceeding for the probate of a will, 26 or for the caveat of a will cannot be removed;27 or a case on appeal for the establishment of claims against deceased. 28 A mandamus is not removable on a plea which raises the issue of title to an office, 29 nor is an action in the nature of a quo warranto.30 A proceeding by quo warranto is removable if the proper conditions for removal exist;31 and so an action of a civil nature, similar to quo warranto, may be subject to a removal. 32 A mandamus proceeding, to compel a court to allow an appeal from an order admitting a will to probate, is removable for diversity in citizenship.33 A feigned issue granted at the instance of an assignee for the benefit of creditors, to try the validity of a judgment recovered by a creditor, which it is claimed was fraudulent as to the other creditors, is removable for diversity of citizenship. Where a State statute provided that condemnation proceedings should be instituted in the probate court, subject to review by the Supreme Court, such proceedings are removable for like reason. 35 Proceedings to determine the value of land, after condemnation therefor for a highway, may be removed to a United States court for a diversity in citizenship of the parties. 36 Proceedings for settlement of guardian's account may be removed on the same ground. 37 A rule upon a United States internal revenue collector, granted by a State court on petition of a sheriff, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him for contempt, in refusing to let the sheriff enter and seize goods held in a bonded warehouse for internal revenue, is a "civil suit, removable to the Federal court. 38 Where a sheriff levies on the property of citizens of another Stato on action to replevy such property is removable. 39

34

1 Parker v. Overman, 59 U. S. 137.

2 Mississippi & Rum R. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403. 3 Banigan v. Worcester, 30 Fed. Rep. 392.

4 Colorado Midland R. Co. v. Jones, 29 Fed. Rep. 193; Whelan v. New York etc. R. Co., 1 L. R. A. 65; Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367; Mississippi & Rum R. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1; Mineral Range R. Co. v. Detroit & L. S. Copper Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 515.

5 Mississippi & Rum R. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Searl v. School Dist. No. 2, 124 U. S. 197; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Myers (Pacific R. Removal Cases), 115 U. S. 1.

6 Upshur v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467.

7 Delaware Co. v. Diebold S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 473.

8 Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S. 73.

9 Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125. See, however, Payne v. Hook, 74 U.S. 425; 81 U. S. 252; Craigie v. McArthur, 4 Dill. 474.

1 Ketchum v. Black Lumber River Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 139.

2 Resp. v. Corbet, 3 Dall. 467; Green v. U. S., 9 Wall. 653; State v. Grand Trunk Railway, 3 Fed. Rep. 887.

3 Rison v. Cribbs, 1 Dill. 184; Green v. U. S., 9 Wall. 655; State v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 887.

4 Resp. v. Corbet, 3 Dall. 467.

5 Ex parte Andrews, 40 Ala. 639.

6 Van Brunt v. Corbin, 14 Blatchf. 496.

7 Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339; Allin v. Robinson, 1 Dill. 119; Ex parte Turner, 3 Wall. Jr. 258; Ex parte Girard, 3 Wall. Jr. 263; Torney v. Beardsley, 4 Wash. C. C. 242; Gale v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 344; Martin v. Snowden, 18 Gratt. 100.

8 Beecher v. Gillett, 1 Dill. 308; Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336. 9 Keith v. Levi, 2 Fed. Rep. 743.

10 Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107; Ramsey v. Coolbaugh, 13 Iowa, 164.

11 Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Davies v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. Rep. 353.

12 Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; R. Co., 6 Biss. 425; Railroad Removal Cases, 13 Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S, 10. 14 Gurnee v. Brunswick, 1 Hughes, 270.

Warren v. Wisconsin V. R. 115 U. S. 1.

15 Southworth v. Adams, 11 The Reporter, 46.

16 Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10.

17 Hargroves v. Redd, 43 Ga. 142; Tibbatts v. Berry, 10 Mon. B. 473; In re Frazer, 18 Alb. L. J. 353; Fouvergne v. New Orleans, 18 How. 470. 18 Hargroves v. Redd, 43 Ga. 142.

19 Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 125.

20 State v. Johnson, 29 La. An. 399.

21 State v. Bowen, Rich. S. C. 382.

22 Searl v. School Dist., 124 U. S. 197; Kansas City & T. R. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 3; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449; State Hunt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C. C. N, D. Ill., 33 Fed. Rep. 721.

23 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449.

24 Erwin v. Walsh, 27 Fed. Rep. 579; S. C., 23 Blatchf. 535.

25 Fuller v. Wright, 23 Fed. Rep. 833.

26 Mineral Range R. R. Co. v. Detroit & Lake Superior Copper Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 515.

27 Colorado Mg. Co. v. Jones, 29 Fed. Rep. 193.

28 Stafford v. Hightower, 68 Ga. 334.

29 McCullough v. Large, 20 Fed. Rep. 303.

30 Kern v. Huidekoper 103 U. S. 485.

93 h. Probate proceedings. A proceeding for the probate of a wiil is not removable;1 but a proceeding to probate a will covering property in two States, the propounder and caveators being citizens of different States, is removable. 2 Proceedings to set aside the probate of a will is a suit, where a contest arises. 3 Á proceeding instituted by strangers to annul a will, or to recall a decree admitting it to probate, is removable; or an action brought to establish a lost will;5 but a proceeding for the caveat of a will cannot be removed. Proceedings in a common pleas court in Ohio to test the validity of a will do not constitute a 66 suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity." They are but the continuance of the controversy made in such contest, and in aid of the probate court in its exercise of probate powers."

1 Hargroves v. Redd, 43 Ga. 142; Tibbatts v. Berry, 10 B. Mon. 473; Re Frazer, 92 N. Y. 239; Fouvergne v. New Orleans, 59 U. S. 470.

2 Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed. Rep. 518.

3 Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485.

4 Gaines v. Fuentes, supra.

5 Southworth v. Adams, 9 Biss. 521.

6 Hargroves v. Redd, 43 Ga. 142.

7 Reed v. Reed, 31 Fed. Rep. 49, citing Howe v. Nesbit (U. S. C. C. N. D. Ohio), April Term, 1878; Case of Broderick's Will, 88 U. S. 504; Yonley v. Lavender, 83 U. S. 476; Tarver v. Tarver, 34 U. S. 174; Ward v. Peck, 59 U. S. 270; Adams v. Preston, 63 U. S. 473.

§ 93 i. Special proceedings. Writs of prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, prosecuted for the attainment of parties' rights, are suits which within the law are removable. 1 But an original proceeding for a mandamus is not a suit of a civil nature, within the Removal Act of March 3, 1875.2 It involves no definite value in controversy.3 Under the Judiciary Act of 1875, sec. 716, a mandamus suit cannot be removed to a Federal circuit court. Taken together they limit the jurisdictiou of Federal circuit courts over mandamus suits to ancillary mandamus suits in which the court has acquired jurisdiction of controversy before the institution of the mandamus suit.'

1 Weston v. Charleston, 27 U. S. 449; Kendall v. U. S., 37 U. S. 521; Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U. S. 540; Ex parte Milligan, 71 U S. 2.

2 Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450.

3 Kurtz v. Moffit, 115 U. S. 487.

4 Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 510, which, in effect, overrules New Orleans etc. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 112 U. S. 12, and Railroad Co. v. Misissippi, 102 U. S. 135, and People v. Colorado etc. R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 638.