where the loss of public records shall put it out of his or their power, and shall move that any one or more of the adverse party inform the court whether he or they claim a right or title to the land under a grant from some other State, the party or parties so required shall give such information, or otherwise not be allowed to plead such grant or give it in evidence upon the trial; and if he or they inform that he or they do claim under such grant, any one or more of the party moving for such information may then, on petition and bond, as herein before mentioned in this act, remove the cause for trial to the circuit court of the United States next to be holden in such district; and any one of either party removing the cause shall not be alllowed to plead or give evidence of any other title than that by him or them stated as aforesaid as the ground of his or their claim. (Clause 4 of sec. 3 Act of March 3, 1875, and Rev. Stats. sec. 647, as superseded by Act of March 3, 1887; 24 U. S. Stats. 552, as corrected Aug. 13, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats. 435; Rev. Stats. sec. 647, repealed and consolidated.)

§ 99 a. Conflicting land grants.-A party who claims land under an act of Congress imposing a direct tax may remove an ejectment suit concerning it.1 Controversies between citizens claiming lands under grants from different States are within the jurisdiction, notwithstanding one of the States at the time of the first grant was a part of the other. It is the first grant which passes legal title and authorizes jurisdiction. If a State issues a grant under the authority of a compact with another State, the case cannot be removed. The right under this section to remove depends on the value of the land, and not on the title; and witnesses may be produced to prove its value. The party applying on the ground of grants from different

8

States must produce his grant in evidence; but a grant based on a warrant and location made before the separation of a part of a State is sufficient showing. A party who claims under a grant from the State in which suit is pending cannot remove the case.

1 Peyton v. Bliss, 1 Woolw, 170.

9

2 Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 232.

3 Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377.

4 Thompson v. Kendricks, 5 Hayw. 115.

5 Thompson v. Kendricks, 5 Hayw. 115. 6 Thompson v. Kendricks, 5 Hayw. 115. 7 Thompson v. Kendricks, 5 Hayw. 115,

8 Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 397; Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292.

9 Shepherd v. Young, 1 Mon. 203.

§ 100. Removal of suits against corporations organized under a law of United States.-(Rev. Stats. sec. 640; 14 U. S. Stats. 306; 15 U. S. Stats. 227; repealed by Act of 1887, sec. 6; 24 U. S. Stats. 552; 25 U. S. Stats. 433.)

§ 100 a. Corporations created by congressional legislation. This section applies only to a case in which the corporation or a member thereof was sole defendant.1 It does not apply to corporations created by foreign governments or by the several States, nor to national banks; it expressly excludes national banks, but not so as to deprive them of the right of removal if their cause is within any other act relating to removals. For jurisdictional purposes they are deemed citizens of the State in which they are located and have their place of business; but neither under the Revised Statutes nor under the National Banking Act have receivers of national banks, as such, the right to remove causes.6 If suit is brought against a banking company, it has no right to remove." Under this act a corporation seeking a removal must show that it was organized under the laws of the United States, or that there is a defense arising under the Federal Constitution, or under some law or treaty of the United States. 8 The fact that it was one organized

DESTY REMOVALS.-26.

19

up.

under the laws of the United States is not alone sufficient. Proceedings for removal may be instituted by the corporation or by any member thereof. 10 Where a member petitions, he must be one who was a member when suit was commenced;11 and all must join in the petition;12 but each, or as many as see fit, may petition without waiting for the others. 13 The petition must state that the corporation or member thereof has a defense arising under and by virtue of the Constitution, a treaty, or a law of the United States, but the matter thereof need not be stated; and if it says the defense arises under an act of Congress, it is sufficient. 15 The particular part of the Constitution or of the act of Congress need not be set 16 A suit under this section may be removed at any time before trial or final hearing.17 The word "suit" embraces a suit brought by a State as well as by an individual. 18 If the corporation is created by the laws of the State, it cannot remove the cause. There is nothing to prevent an insolvent corporation, whose property is in the hands of a receiver, to appear in an attachment suit, and remove the cause. 20 The existence of a suit by stockholders does not affect the right to remove. 21 Corporations of the United States are entitled to remove suits brought against them on the ground that such suits are suits "arising under the laws of the United States." 22 This section, providing for removals of suits against foreign corporations, though not affected by the Act of March 3, 1875, was expressly repealed by the Act of 1887, section 6.23 It was held to apply only to corporations created under a law of Congress; and not to those created by the General Government or by the several States; 24 and this fact had to be shown by a corporation seeking removal under its provisions; or it must be shown that there is a defense arising under the Constitution, etc., of the United States. 25 National banks are not within its purview. 26 A corporation chartered by the United States is neither an alien nor a citizen, and may remove a cause at any time before trial or final hearing. 27 Under this act the Federal corporation or member thereof need not necessarily be the sole defendant.28

1 Hazard v. Durand, 9 R. I. 609. Held otherwise: Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362; S. C., 8 Blatchf. 299.

2 Jones v. Oceanic St. Nav. Co., 11 Blatchf. 406.

3 Jones v. Oceanic St. Nav. Co., 11 Blatchf. 406.

4 Chatham Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of West Va., 1 Hun, 702; Ludlow v. Kidd, 3 Ohio, 48.

5 Chatham Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of West Va., 1 Hun, 702; Cooke v. State Nat. Bank, 52 N. Y. 96; Davis v. Cook, 9 Nev. 134; Manuf. Nat. Bank v. Baack, 2 Abb. U. S. 232; S. C., 8 Blatchf. 137. See Ludlow v. Kidd, 3 Ohio, 48.

6 Bird's Ex'rs v. Cockrem, 2 Woods, 32.

7 Pettilon v. Noble, 7 Biss. 449.

8 Northern Line P. Co. v. Binninger, 70 Ill. 571.

9 Magee v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Sawy. 447. Contra, Turton v. Uzion Pac. R. Co., 3 Dill. 366. See Bauman v. Union Pac. R. Co., 3 Dill. 367. 10 Fisk v. Union Pac, R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362.

11 Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362. And ownership of stock is necessary to membership: Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362. See Burke v. Flood, 6 Sawy. 220; S. C., 1 Fed. Rep. 541; Hawes v. Contra Costa W. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 93, note. A member not otherwise a party than as a member cannot remove the cause without consent of the corporation: Gard v. Durant, 4 Cliff. 113.

12 Gard v. Durant, 4 Cliff. 113.

13 Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 8 Blatchf. 243.

14 Jones v. Oceanic St. Nav. Co., 11 Blatchf. 403; The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247: Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336; Clark v. Opdyke, 17 N. Y. Supr. 383; Magee v. Union Pac. R. Co., 2 Sawy. 447.

15 Jones v. Oceanic St. Nav. Co., 11 Blatchf. 406.

16 Kain v. Texas Pac. R. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 12.

17 Ely v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 36 Leg. Int. 164.

18 Texas v. Texas & Pac. R. Co., 3 Woods, 308.

19 Copeland v. M. & C. R. Co., 3 Woods, 651. See Terry v. Insurance Co., 3 Dil. 408.

20 Second Nat. Bank v. N. Y. Silk Manuf. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 532.

21 Scott v. Clinton & S. R. Co., 6 Biss. 520.

22 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Myers, 115 U. S. 1 (Pacific R. R. Cases); F. L. & T. Co. v. D. S. P. etc. R. Co., 1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 584.

23 Jones v. Oceanic S. Nav. Co., 11 Blatchf. 406.

24 Jones v. Oceanic S. Nav. Co., 11 Blatchf. 406.

25 Northern Line P. Co. v. Bininger, 70 Ill. 571.

26 Cooper v. Leather Manuf. Nat. Bank, 29 Fed. Rep. 161.

27 Ely v. Railroad Co., 13 Phila. 161.

28 Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 8 Blatchf. 243, dissenting from Hazard v. Durant, supra, which held the contrary. See further, Gard v. Durant, 4 Cliff. 113; Dill. Rem. Causes, 5th ed. 8.

§ 101. Removal of causes against persons denied any civil rights, etc.When any civil suit or criminal prosecution is commenced in any State court, for any cause whatso

ever, against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the judicial tribunals of the State, or in the part of the State where such suit or prosecution is pending, any right secured to him by any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, or against any officer, civil or military, or other person, for any arrest or imprisonment, or other trespasses or wrongs, made or committed by virtue of or under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights as aforesaid, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law, such suit or prosecution may, upon the petition of such defendant, filed in said State court at any time before the trial or final hearing of the cause, stating the facts and verified by oath, be removed for trial into the next circuit court to be held in the district where it is pending. Upon the filing of such petition all further proceedings in the State courts shall cease, and shall not be resumed except as hereinafter provided. But all bail and other security given in such suit or prosecution shall continue in like force and effect as if the same had proceeded to final judgment and execution in the State court. It shall be

the duty of the clerk of the State court to furnish such defendant, petitioning for a removal, copies of said process against him, and of all pleadings, deposition, testimony, and other proceedings in the If such copies are filed by said petitioner in the circuit court on the first day of its session, the cause shall proceed therein in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process;

case.