be remanded. An exception to the jurisdiction, and a prayer that the action be dismissed, is not a proper petition. 43 A second petition does not constitute an aban donment of the first;44 but if a case has been once removed, and then remanded because insufficient, the party cannot file a second petition.45 If a petition be defective, it may be amended, as a matter of right; 46 and if not verified, a verified petition may be filed.*7 A verified petition must state that defendants have a defen e arising under and by virtue of the Constitution, treaty, or law of the United States. 48 The petition may be filed in vacation. 49 The allegations of the petition for removal are jurisdictional, and they must be positive and certain.50 If the petition for removal fails to state all the facts, but refers to the pleading in the State court, the Federal court will look to them.51 Objections to the form of petition for removal will not be decided by the State court. 52 Petition alleging residence is not sufficient; residence is not synonymous with citizenship,53 But in such a case an amendment may be allowed, when no injustice can result therefrom. 54 An allegation that the defendant is an alien, as plaintiff is informed and verily believes," is insufficient. 55 Petition showing that applicant is not citizen of State, but which fails to show what the citizenship of the other party is, is insufficient and defective.56 Citizenship if shown by the record need not be set out in the petition for removal.57 The sufficiency of such a petition is governed largely by the rules of pleading, and is defective in stating only as a conclusion that a defense exists under defendant's charter, granted by the United States, without stating upon what facts the conclusion is based, and when it does not appear, from the charter or otherwise, that such defense exists. 58 When filed it cannot be contradicted or controverted. 59

66

1 Shaft v. Phoenix M. L. Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 544.

2 De Camp v. N. J. M. L. Ins. Co., 2 Sweeney, 481.

3 Brown v. Keene, 8 Peters, 112; citing Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall, 19, 382; Abercrombie v. Dupuis, 7 Cranch, 343; Wood v. Wagnor, 2 Cranch, 9; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 126. It should not set out the conclusions of law only: Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421; Hambleton v. Duham 2? Fed. Rep. 465. And see as to sufficiency of petition: Adams v. May, 27 Fed. Rep. 907: McLane v. Leicht, 27 Fed. Rep. 887; Rothschild v. Matthews, 22 Fed. Rep. 6.

4 Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawy, 178.

DESTY REMOVALS.-28.

5 In re Anderson, 3 Woods, 124; McMurdy v. Ins. Co., 4 Week. Ins. Cas. 18; Tunstall v. Madison Parish, 30 La. An. 471; Lalor v. Dunning, 56 How. Pr. 209.

6 Smith v. Horton, 7 Fed. Rep. 270.

7 People v. Superior Court, 34 Ill. 356.

8 Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Smith, 71 Ill. 204; U. S. Sav. Inst. v. Brockschmidt, 72 Ill. 370; New Orleans etc. Co. v. Recorder etc., 27 La. An. 291; McWhinney v. Brooke, 64 Ind. 360; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 52 Miss. 227; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 332; Blair v. West Point etc. Co., 7 Neb. 146.

9 Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186.

10 Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186. See New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135.

11 Bondurant v. Walson, 103 U. S. 281.

12 Holden v. Putnam F. Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 1.

13 Holden v. Putnam F. Ins. Co.. 46 N. Y. 1.

14 Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137; Darst v. Bates, 51 Ill. 439; Corp. v. Vermilye, 3 Johns. 145; Martin v. Coons, 24 La. An. 169; Beebe v. Armstrong, 11 Mart. 440.

15 Rathbone Oil Tract Co. v. Bauch, 5 W. Va. 79.

16 Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186.

17 Easton v. Rucker, 1 Marsh. J. J. 232.

18 Welch v. Tennent, 4 Cal. 203; Savings Bank v. Benton, 2 Met. (Ky;) 240.

19 Berlin v. Jones, 1 Woods, 638.

20 Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 95 U. S. 183; Carswell v. Schley, 59 Ga. 17. But see Stoker v. Leavenworth, 7 La. 390.

21 Insurance Co. v. Francis, 11 Wall. 210; Welch v. Tennent, 4 Cal. 203; Harrison v. Shorter, 59 Ga. 112; Insurance Co. v. McGuire, 52 Miss. 227; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 332; Phoenix L. Ins. Co. v. Saettal, 33 Ohio St. 278; Savings Bank v. Benton, 2 Met. (Ky.) 240.

22 Cook v. Seligman, 7 Fed. Rep. 263.

23 McLean v. St. Paul etc. R. Co. 16 Blatchf. 309. See also Jackson v. Mutual Ins. Co., 3 Woods, 413; S. C. 60 Ga. 423; Johnson v. Monell, Woolw. 390; McGinnity v. White, 3 Dill. 350.

24 Weed Sew. Mach. Co. v. Smith, 71 Ill. 204; Beebe v. Cheeney, 11 The Reporter, 360; Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U. S. 183; S. C. 6 Lans. 411; Savings Bank v. Benton, 2 Met. (Ky.) 240; U. S. Sav. Inst. v. Brockschmidt, 72 Ill. 370; Indiana B. & W. R. Co. v. Risley, 50 Ind. 60; Holden v. Putnam, 46 N. Y. 1; Kaeiser v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 1. But see People v. Superior Court, 34 Ill. 356.

25 Burdick v. Peterson, 6 Fed, Rep. 840.

26 Field v. Blair, 1 Code Reporter, N. S. 361.

27 Carswell v. Schley, 59 Ga. 17.

28 Fallis v. McArthur, 1 Bond. 100; Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duer, 677; Calderwood v. Hager, 20 Col. 167; Norton v. Hayes, 4 Denio, 245: Bryan v. Ponder, 23 Ga. 480; W. A. & G. R. Co. v. C. & W. R. Co., 19 Gratt. 592; Davis v. Cook, 9 Nev. 134; Pugsley v. F. S. & T. Co. 2 Tenn. Ch. 130.

29 Chester v. Chester, 7 Fed. Rep. 1; Smith v. Horton, 11 The Reporter, 423; Meyer v. Delaware Constr. Co., 100 U. S. 457.

30 Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duer, 677. kins, 2 Miles, 277; Best v. N. Y. L. Ins. Delaware R. Co., 100 U. S. 457.

Contra: Kirkpatrick v. HopCo., 2 Cin. Rep. 329; Meyer v.

31 McLean v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 16 Blatchf. 309; Cooke v. Seligman, 7 Fed. Rep. 263; Dennis v. Alachua Co., 3 Woods, 683; Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duer, 677; Wormser v. Kline, 57 How. Pr. 286; Rosenfield v. Adams Express Co., 21 La. An. 233; Sweeney v. Coffin, 1 Dill. 73.

32 Fisk v. Fisk, 4 Martin N. S. 676; Cooke v. Seligman, 7 Fed. Rep. 263.

33 Fisk v. Fisk, 4 Martin N. S. 676; Dennis v. Alachua Co., 3 Woods, 683; Wormser v. Kline, 57 How. Pr. 286; Mix v. Andes Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 53; Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duer, 677; Shaft v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 544; Meyer v. Del. R. Co., 100 U. S. 457.

34 Kirkpatrick v. Hopkins, 2 Miles, 277.

35 Allen v. Ryerson, 2 Dill. 501; Connor v. Scott, 4 Dill. 242; Bowen v. Chase, 7 Blatchf. 255; Sweeney v. Coffin, 1 Dill. 73; Merchants' etc. Bank v. Wheeler, 3 Cent. L. J. 13; Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 373; Osgood v. C. D. & V. R. Co., 6 Biss. 330.

36 De Camp v. N. J. M. L. Ins. Co., 2 Sweeney, 481.

37 Norris v. Mineral Point Tun. Co., 11 The Reporter, 693; Dart v. Walker, 43 How. Pr. 29: Minnett v. M. & St. P. R. Co., 3 Dill. 460; Stanle v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 62 Mo. 508; Goodrich v. Hunton, 29 La An. 372.

38 Dart v. Walker, 4 Daly, 188.

39 Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 22 Wall. 328.

40 Goodrich v. Hunton, 29 La. An. 372.

41 Norris v. Mineral Point Tunnel, 7 Fed. Rep. 272.

42 Clark v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 355; Sweet v. Same, 11 Fed. Rep. 355,

43 Webre v. Duroc, 15 La. An. 65.

44 Tunstall v. Madison, 30 La. An. 471.

45 Eastin v. Rucker, 1 Marsh. J. J. 232.

46 Delaware Riv. C. Co. v. D. & St. P. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 400; Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273.

47 Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273.

48 Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738.

49 Osgood v. C. D. & V. R. Co., 6 Biss. 330.

50 Wolff v. Archibald, 14 Fed. Rep. 396.

51 McLane v. Leicht, 27 Fed. Rep. 837.

52 Forncrook M. Co. v. Barum Wire Works, 54 Mich, 552. State court will pass on sufficiency of petition: Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. McAllister, 59 Tex. 349.

53 Brock v. Dole, 18 Fla. 172; Parker v. Overman, 59 U. S. 137.

54 Glover v. Shepperd, 15 Fed. Rep. 833.

55 Wolff v. Archibald, 14 Fed. Rep. 396.

58 Elliott v. Stocks, 67 Ala. 290.

57 Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118.

58 Texas & Pacific R'y Co. v. McAllister, 59 Texas, 319.

59 Stewart v. Mordecai, 40 Ga. 1.

1

§ 105 d. Allegation as to subject-matter of suit. Where removal is claimed on the ground that the suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the petition must state facts showing this to be the case. If averments making a case arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States appear to be immaterial, they are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. A complaint which fails to show any damages from an alleged nuisance is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to a Federal court on removal of the cause. 3 An allegation that plaintiff's property was seized under color of a State law, and that such law is void as against the Federal Constitution, sufficiently presents a Federal question. * 1 Gold Wash. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199; Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawy. 178; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421.

2 Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522. 3 Kenyon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. Rep. 309. 4 Booth v. Lloyd, 33 Fed. Rep. 593.

4

3

§ 105 e. Allegation of citizenship.-An averment of residence is not an averment of citizenship for purposes of jurisdiction. A petition which simply states what was defendant's citizenship at its date, and not what it was at the commencement of the suit, is insufficient. 2 The allegation “that said plaintiffs, as such executors, are citizens of the State of New York," is not sufficient. The citizenship of the parties as persons must be alleged. There must be a distinct statement of the citizenship of the parties, and of the particular State in which it is claimed, in order to sustain the jurisdiction. Citizenship in a State must be alleged, as citizenship in the District of Columbia or in a Territory states no ground for removal.5 Where the petition showed sufficient ground, on account of diverse citizenship, it was not vitiated by a further statement of belief that justice could not be secured on account of prejudice or local influence. Citizenship of the parties, or the facts which constitute it, should be distinctly averred in the pleading or appear affirmatively in some other part of the record. An averment of residence is not the equivalent of an averment of citizenship for the purposes of jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. A petition for removal, filed by a railroad company, one of the defendants, averring that petitioner was a corporation

created under the laws of Wisconsin; that complainants were citizens of Massachusetts; that the other defendants were citizens of States other than Massachusetts; that petitioner was the sole owner of a part of the land in dispute, and was in sole possession thereof, shows a separable controversy between complainants and the petitioner, and entitles the latter to a removal." If necessary citizenship existed when suit was Lrought in the circuit court, but was not averred, that court, after reversal for that reason in the Supreme Court of the United States, may in its discretion allow an amendment of the pleadings to give jurisdiction. 10 A petition which shows on its face a right to remove may be amended in the circuit court by setting forth in proper form what had been before imperfectly stated. 11 In allowing amendments, the court can make no distinction between cases exclusively triable in State courts and those claimed to be removable to the United States courts.12

1 Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378; Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171.

2 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U. S. 183.

3 Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 196.

4 Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646.

5 Barney v. Baltimore, 73 U. S. 280; Seddon v. Virginia T. & C. S. & I. Co. (Va.), 1 L. R. A. 108.

6 Meyer v. Delaware R. Construction Co. ("Removal Cases"), 100 U. S. 457.

7 Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. 230; Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322.

8 Everhart v. Huntsville Female College, 120 U. S. 223; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253.

9 Bacon v. Felt, 38 Fed. Rep. 870.

10 Everhart v. Huntsville Female College, 120 U. S. 223; Continental L. Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Halsted v Buster, 119 U. S. 341; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253; Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 612; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586.

11 Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421.

12 Austin v. North. Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 473

§ 105 f. Allegation of non-residence.-A petition for removal by a corporation of one State sued in another must allege, in addition to the usual averment as to citizenship, that it is a non-resident of the State in which it is sued. Where it alleges that it is a corporation created under the laws of a State other than that in which the suit is brought, it sufficiently shows that the