another state allowing it to transact business therein, and annexing terms to such privilege, can deprive it of the rights and privileges of a corporation of the state wherein it is created.' In an application for the removal of a suit at law from a state court to the circuit court of the United States, no other than legal interests in the suit can be considered in determining the question of jurisdiction, and the question of who are the real parties to the suit; and this is to be done from the records. The court can not go outside of the case to ascertain whether some person other than the real plaintiff has not an equitable interest in the cause of action. The trustees, or survivor thereof, in a trust mortgage, are the real plaintiffs in a suit brought to enforce an interest growing out of such trust. As the cause of action is in such trustee, the court looks to his citizenship in disposing of the question of jurisdiction, or of a right of removal of the suit, and not to the residence of the persons who are the beneficiaries of the subject-matter of litigation.* And as a legislative act discharging or changing the trust from one or more trustees to others would be invalid for impairing the obligation of the mortgage contract, it can not be so changed without the consent of the cestuis que trust. The right would still remain with the original trustees, who are the proper parties to a suit involving the trust interests." The right to remove a cause from a state court to a United States court, under the twelfth section of the judiciary act, exists as well where the suit is on an assigned instrument as otherwise. The restriction of the eleventh section of that act does not apply to cases wherein the plaintiff is a citizen of the state in 1 Hatch . The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. and others, 6 Blatch. C. C. R. 105; S. C. 1 With. Am. Corp. Cases, 79, 85; Louisville, C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall The Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 16 How. 314; The Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 232; Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Manf. Nat. Bank v. Baack and others, 8 Blatch. 137; S. C. 1 With. Am. Corp. Cases, 93. 2 Knapp v. Railroad Company, 20 Wall. 117, 122. 3 Knapp v. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 123. And they will be regarded as such in a suit by them, on a question of removal thereof from a state to a United States court: Ib. 4 Knapp v. Railroad Company, 20 Wall. 117, 124. 5 Knapp v. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 122, 123. which the suit is brought, and the defendant is a citizen of a different state. And a condemnation proceeding may be removed to the United States court on account of citizenship.2 On the 3d of March, 1875, Congress passed an act entitled "An act to determine the jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from state courts, and for other purposes." By the second section of this act, it is provided that any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, then pending or thereafter brought in any state court, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, or in which the United States shall be plaintiff or petitioner, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects, either party may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. And when, in any such suit, 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 plaintiffs or defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove such suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. The process of removal provided in this act is, 1st. To file a petition in the state court, before or at the term at which the cause can be first tried, and before the trial thereof, for the removal of such suit into the circuit court of the United States, to be held in the district where such suit is pending, stating the grounds for removal. 2d. And make and file with such petition a bond, with good and sufficient surety, for his or their entering in such circuit court, on the first day of its then next session, a copy of the record in such suit, and for paying all costs that may be awarded by said circuit court in case said court holds that the suit is wrongfully or improperly removed thereto; and also for there appearing and entering special bail in such suit, 2 Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403. 1 Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; Ayres v. The Western R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 260. if special bail was originally requisite therein. This having been done, the state court is to accept the petition and bond, and proceed no further in the cause. The copy must then be entered into the said circuit court of the United States on or be fore the first day of the then next term, together with the appearance thereto of the party obtaining the removal, and the cause is then to proceed in the same manner as if originally commenced in said United States court. If, however, from the time of removal there be less than twenty days intervening before the next term, then the entering the copy into the United States court, and appearance of the party, must be within twenty days from the date of the removal. If the suit be a monied action, then the sum claimed in the declaration or petition of plaintiff is evidence of the amount in controversy, and no additional proof thereof is required; but if for property, then the value is to be shown by affidavit, or other evidence satisfactory to the court. In a recent case this statute has received a partial exposition. by the Supreme Court of the United States. As to the first clause of the second section, it is held the cause may be removed where the controversy is between citizens of different states, irrespective of the question who are the actual plaintiffs and defendants in the suit. The matter in dispute must first be determined, and the status of the parties determined with reference to that alone. In this respect the new law differs from the old, for under that the pleadings only were looked to to ascertain the parties. As to the second clause, the Supreme Court reserve their opinion, no question on it arising in that case. In cases pending in state courts at the time of the passage of the act, an application for removal made at the first term thereafter is in apt time. Upon the question whether the application is made before trial, it is held that the trial must be actually in progress in the orderly course of proceeding, in order to bar the right of removal. A party entitled to a removal who is denied such 1Act of Cong. 3d March, 1875, secs. 1 and 2; Laws of 2d session 43 Cong., 470, 471. * Meyer v. Construction Co., 100 U. S. 457; S. C. 21 Am. Ry. Rep. 465. See this case also for form of petition for removal, held good. 8 Meyer v. Const. Co., supra. 4 Meyer v. Const. Co, supra. right and forced to trial, loses none of his rights by defending the action.' 2. When removable for prejudice or local influence.By the act of Congress of 2d of March, 1867, any suit brought in a state court, in which there is a controversy between a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought and a citizen or corporation of another state, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, may be removed into the circuit court of the United States by such citizen or corporation of another state, whether plaintiff or defendant, by making and filing in such state court an affidavit, stating that such citizen or corporation has reason to and does believe that, from prejudice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in such state court, and by filing with such affidavit a petition in such state court, at any time before the final hearing or trial of such suit, praying for the removal thereof into the next circuit court of the United States to be held in the district where the suit is pending, and by offering good and sufficient security for entering in such United States court, on the first day of its session, copies of all process, pleadings, depositions, testimony, and other proceedings in said suit. Under this act of Congress, a party, if the case be otherwise of a proper character for removal, may remove his suit, whether he be plaintiff or defendant, into the United States court, at any time before the final hearing or trial; and this, too, although the party seeking to remove the same be plaintiff, and has voluntarily elected to commence his action in the court of the state.3 And the same rule applies to actions commenced before the enactment of the amendatory act of 1867, if such actions be still pending subsequently to the passage of said act.* When a right of action exists in a party, whether at common law or given by statute, of a character otherwise capable of being brought in, or removed to, a court of the United States, no state can make any valid law requiring the same to be pro-ecuted exclusively in the court or courts of the state. Nor 'Meyer v. Const. Co.; Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214. 214 U. States Statutes at Large, 558; Brightley's Dig. L. U. S., Vol. 2, 116, sec. 17. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. r. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. does it matter to the contrary that the right of action be conferred by a statute of the state, and that the statute confines the right to prosecute the same in terms to the courts of such state. In either case such statutory requirement is invalid, as an invasion of the rightful and constitutional authority of the national government.' 3. When removable for defense arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of United States.-When a suit or action is commenced in a state court by any person, wheresoever resident, against a railroad corporation organized under the laws of the United States, for any liability or alleged liability of such corporation, or any member thereof as such member, such corporation, or officer or member thereof, as the case may be, may have such suit or action, whether the same be at law or in equity, removed from the court wherein it may be pending to the circuit court of the United States, or proper United States court, by filing a petition for such removal, verified by oath, either before or after joining issue therein, claiming to have a defense arising under or by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, or any treaty or law of the United States, and offering good security for entering into such United States court, on the first day of its next session, copies of all process, pleadings, depositions, testimony and other proceedings in such suit. 4. Removal when sued for loss or damage caused by hostile forces, or by forces, or officers thereof, of United States.-Under the act of Congress of January 22, 1869, amendatory of the act of March 3, 1863, when any suit or action at law, or prosecution, civil or criminal, commenced in. any state court against the owner or owners of any railway, or against any railroad corporation, engaged in the transportation, as common carriers, of goods, wares or merchandise, for any loss or damage which may have happened to any goods, wares or merchandise delivered to such owner or corporation for transportation, while engaged as common carriers, by the acts of those engaged in hostility to the 'Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. 215th Vol. U. S. Statutes at Large, 227; Brightley's Dig. L. U. S., Vol. 2, 116, sec. 18. A suit by a corporation created by the United States, is a suit arising under the laws of the United States: Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. McComb, 17 Blatch. 510; S. C. 1 Fed, Repr. 799, 21 Am. Ry. Rep. 266. |