3 Walker v. O'Nelll, 38 Fed. Rep. 374; Cudahy v. McGeoch, 37 Fed. Rep. 1.

4 Harold v. Iron Silver Min. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 529. See Kansas City etc. R. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 3.

5 Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Cowenhoven, 41 Fed. Rep. 450.

6 Southworth v. Reid, 36 Fed. Rep. 451; following Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275.

7 Kansas City etc. Co. v. Interstate L. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 3; overruling Harold v. Mining Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 529. See Pollard v. Dwight, 8 U. S. 421; Barry v. Foyles, 26 U. S. 311.

8 Cravens v. Turner, 82 Me. 333. See Bushnell v. Kennedy, 76 U. S. 387; Green v. Custard, 63 U. S. 484.

9 Uhle v. Burnham, 42 Fed. Rep. 1.

10 McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour Mills Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 577. 11 Vinal v. Continental Coast & Imp. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 228.

§ 95 r. Inhabitancy of corporation.-A corporation is an inhabitant of the State which created it, or of the State which keeps its records and principal office. It can have no legal existence beyond the bounds of the sovereignty by which it is created.1 Corporations are conclusively presumed to be citizens and residents of the State creating them. The right to a removal by the corporation of another State is not lost by reason of such corporation having an office for the transaction of business in the State in which the suit is brought. Nor can such corporation be deprived of this right by State legislation, or affect it in any way by authorizing service of process on its agent in the State. A statute which allows a foreign corporation to do business in the State only on condition that it will agree not to remove suits, is unconstitutional, and such agreement is void. And a general waiver of the right to remove, in pursuance of a State statute, as a condition for transacting business in the State, is void. A State law requiring a foreign corporation to comply with certain regulations does not make it a citizen. These rules apply to corporations organized under the laws of a foreign country, and having an office in the State for business purposes. But a foreign corporation (e. g., chartered by Great Britain) doing business in Texas through a local agent, and being under Texas law subject to suit by service on such agent, is not a non-resident, entitled to remove a cause to the Federal courts under the Act of August 13, 1888.9

1 Connor v. Vicksburg & M. R. Co. (Mo.) 1 L. R. A. 331; Hirsch v. Threshing Mach. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 803; Myers v. Nelson, 43 Fed. Rep. 695, Baughman v. National W. W. Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 4.

2 Speer, Rem. Causes, 33, note, citing National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 286; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Baltimore & O. Co. v. Harris, 79 U. S. 65; Chicago & N, W. R. Co. v. Whitton, 80 U. S. 270.

3 Hatch v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 105; Fales v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673; Scott v. Texas Land & C. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 225; Myers v. Murray, 43 Fed. Rep. 695; Amsden v. Norwich Union F. Ins. Soc., 44 Fed. Rep. 515.

4 Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Dickinson, 40 Ind. 444; Hobbs v. Manhattan Ins. Co., 56 Me. 417; Morton v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 105 Mass. 141; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Whitton, 80 U. S. 270; Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 492; Logan v. Greenlaw, 12 Fed. Rep. 19; Allen v. Texas & P. R. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 515.

5 Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 87 U. S. 415; Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. Harper, 3 Hughes, 260.

6 Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 87 U. S. 445; Railway Pass. Assur. Co. v. Pierce, 29 Ohio St. 155; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Cary, 27 Ohio St. 208. Contra: N. Y. L. Ins. Co. v. Best, 23 Ohio St. 105.

7 N. Y. Piano Co. v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 357 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5.

8 Purcell v. British etc. Co. 42 Fed. Rep. 465.

9 Scott v. Texas etc. Co, 41 Fed. Rep. 225.

§ 95 s. Removal must be into the proper dis

trict. Defendants who are sued out of the district in which they reside may remove the suit from the State court to the Federal court when it might have been originally brought in that court. And the provision that the defendant shall not be sued in any other district than that of which he is an inhabitant is only a privilege, of which he may or may not avail himself, as a personal exemption from suit within such other jurisdiction. If the citizenship of the parties is sufficient, a defendant may consent to be sued anywhere he pleases.3 The removal, in all cases, is into the circuit court of the district which embraces territorially the State court in which the suit is pending at the time of the removal, without regard to the place where it originated. An action by a citizen and resident of the eastern district of Texas against a citizen of another State, in a State court in the western district of Texas, is removable to the circuit court of the latter district. 5 Removal of a cause into a Federal court, and two trials on the merits, prevent a party from claiming that it has never been in court, because it was not sued in the proper county. One defendant cannot raise the objection that another is sued in a Federal court outside the district of which it is an inhabitant. Where proper service in a removed cause was had on defendant in the

6

State court, he cannot object after removal that he was not served in the Federal district of the court to which the cause is removed.

1 St. Louis, V. & T H. R. Co. v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 385.

2 Cooley v. McArthur, 35 Fed. Rep. 372.

3 Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Page v. Chillicothe, 6 Fed. Rep. 599. See Toland v. Sprague, 37 U. S. 300.

4 Hess v Reynolds, 113 U. S 73.

5 Burck v. Taylor, 29 Fed. Rep. 531.

6 Estill v. New York, L E. & W. R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 849.

7 Jewett v. Bradford Sav. Bank & T. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 801.

8 Friezen v. Allemania F. Ins. Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 343.

§ 96 h.

§ 96 i.

§ 96 j.

§ 96 k.

§ 96 1.

§ 96 m.

§ 96 n.

§ 96 o.

§ 96 p.

Jurisdiction does not depend on citizenship of formal or nomir al parties.

Nominal partie

Citizenship of all parties on one side must be diverse from that
of all on the other side.

Court will arrange parties on opposite sides.
Removal on ground of separable controversy.
Separability, how determined.

Either one or more of the defendants may remove a separable
controversy

Limitation of right to remove a separable controversy.
Controversy must be wholly between citizens of different states.
Must be capable of being fully determined between the parties.
Final determination of controversy.

§ 96 q.

§ 96 r.

§ 96 s.

Inseparable controversy not removable

§ 96 w.

§ 96 x.

Separate defenses do not create separate controversies.
Ancillary proceedings.

§ 97 c.

§ 97 d.

§ 97 e.

Whether prejudice or local influence act is repealed-Query?
General restrictions which do not apply under this clause.
Restriction as to amount in controversy.

$97 g.

§ 97 h.

§ 97 i. § 98.

§ 98 a.

§ 98 b.

$ 98 c.

$98 d.

The right based on adverse citizenship.

Any non-resident defendant may remove the cause.
Conditions to right to remove.

Application to circuit court-Trial of issue of fact-Remand.
Application to be made to circuit court.

Petition for removal under prejudice or local influence act.
Where petitioner is a corporation.

Application, when to be made under the Act of 1887.

§ 98 e.

§ 98 f

Time to make application under the Judiciary Act.
Notice to be given of application.

§ 98 i.

§ 98 j.

§ 98 k.

Affidavit must accompany application.

$ 98 1.

The fact must be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court
Insufficient showing by affidavit.

Affidavit for removal, by whom to be made.

§ 98 q.

§ 98 r.

Removal as to party, where action severable.
Order remanding cause.

§ 96. On ground of diverse citizenship. And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. (Cl. 3 of Act of March 3, 1887, 24 U. S. Stats. 552; as corrected Aug. 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats. 433, amendatory of cl. 2 of sec. 2 of Act of March 3, 1875.)

§ 96 a. What cases governed by this clause.

The third clause of the second section of the Act of March 3, 1887, like the second clause of the second section of the Act of March 3, 1875, governs that class of cases only where there are two or more controversies involved in the