39. The supreme court has jurisdiction in partition against unknown owners by proceedings under the statute which are treated as in rem.

40. In an action in equity in partition, the court must acquire jurisdiction of the person of the party to be affected by the judgment, in order to render a valid judgment in the

action.

Supreme court commissioners.

41. Although the office of supreme court commissioner is abolished, its powers and duties survive, and are or may be given by the legislature to the justices of the supreme court, or any of the officers authorized by the constitution.

Mechanics' lien.

42. The supreme court has the power to protect and preserve to a party a contingent lien, under the mechanics lien law, before judgment.

Trustees.

43. The supreme court has power to remove trustees and appoint substitutes, not only In cases of express trust, but to powers in trust, and the grantees of such powers, either by petition or action.

Receivers.

44. The supreme court has power to appoint, by petition, receivers under the Revised Statutes "of proceedings against corporations in equity;" and in making such appointment, the court acts as one of gencral jurisdiction, and not as exercising a special statutory power. The visitorial powers of the supreme court relative to proceedings against corporations in equity can only be exercised on an application made by the attorney general, or of a creditor of the corporations, or of a director, trustee or other officer having a general superintendence of its concerns.

45. The supreme court has the power to order an apportionment of the debts of a banking corporation among its stockholders, although the receiver may have assets in his hands undisposed of.

Admission of attorneys.

46. The power exercised by the supreme court in the admission of attorneys and counsellors at law, is a judicial power, and is subject to all the ordinary incidents of other proceedings in courts of justice.

Acts of attorneys.

47. The supreme court have power to relieve, in a summary manner, parties to actions pending in the court from judgments or orders obtained against them through the negligence, ignorance or raud of their attorneys.

48. The supreme court has jurisdiction to interfere in a summary manner, at the instance of third persons to protect them from any abuse of power by any officer of the court under pretense of an authority derived from it.

Foreign executors.

49. The supreme court has equitable jurisdiction over foreign executors as to their own liability for the wrongful use or misapplication of trust funds which have come to their hands.

Habeas corpus and certiorari.

50. The supervisory power of the supreme court over inferior tribunals by means of a common law certiorari only extends to questions of jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal, and the regularity of its proceedings.

51. The power o

the supreme court in cases of a certiorari authorized by statute

generally depends upon the provisions of the statute authorizing it.

52. The supreme court have no power to issue a writ of certiorari to bring up from one of the judges of the New York common pleas for review, summary proceedings pending and undetermined before the judge. An application under the statute for the delivery over of books and papers by a public officer.

53. The justices of the supreme court (and all judges of state courts) have the power and the right, and the duty imposed upon them, to give a detained party enlisted unác: the laws of the United States, the benefit of a habeas corpus.

54. A justice of the supreme court has no power or authority on habeas corpus to let a defendant to bail after his indictment and arrest under a bench warrant, out of the county where the indictment was found.

Illegal tax or assessment.

55. The supreme court have no power by injunction in an action in equity to restrain the collection of a tax or assessment which is alleged to be erroneous, illegal or void, where the invalidity or illegality appears on the proceedings imposing it.

Surrogates decrees.

56. Upon an appeal from a decree of a surrogate the supreme court has no power to receive further evidence, or award an issue to be tried by jury at the circuit. It can only review the determination of the surrogate upon the proofs before him.

fants.

57. The supreme court has power to proceed summarily without a reference authorized by statute, in cases of the disposition of infants real estate, where it is necessary and proper for any of the purposes indicated by the statute.

Charitable and benevolent societies.

58. By a statute of 1861, the supreme ceurt has the power, on the application of three. fourths of the trustees, to order the leasing or conveyancing of the real estate of any charitable, benevolent, scientific missionary society or orphan asylum, which it may deem proper, for such uses as the court shall deem best, for their interest

Religious societies.

59. The powers formerly vested in the chancellor to hear and determine applications made by religious corporations to sell their real estate, is now, by the constitution of 1846, devolved upon the supreme court.

Collusion and fraud.

CO. The supreme court has and can exercise the essential inherent powers of efficiently controlling every proceeding in any action pending in it, so as effectually to protect every person actually interested in the result, from injustice and fraud. It will not allow a trustee to concede away any portion of the trust estate without ample consideration. It will set aside a judgment entered against the corporation of a city, through collusion of its officials, on the application of a tax payer and officer of the city. As a general rule it will allow only parties to an action, and attorneys on the record, as having any standing in court in relation to it.

Transfer of causes.

61. The supreme court has power to remove into that court any action brought under subdivision 2, of § 33 of the Code, and pending in the superior court or court of commen pleas for the city and county of New York.

62. The supreme court become fully possessed of any action or proceeding transferred to it by force of the laws of 1857, from the superior court of Buffalo-where two justices of the latter court are incapable of acting.

63. An action or proceeding pending in the county court will be transferred to the supreme court where the county judge is incapable of acting.

64. An action or proceeding pending in the city court of Brooklyn, will be transferred to the supreme court where the city judge is disqualified from acting.

Transfer to United States court.

65. A cause may be removed from a state court into a circuit court of the United States where the parties plaintiff and defendant are citizens each of a different state. 66. A cause may be thus removed where the sum or value in dispute exceeds $500. 67. Where a corporation is a party plaintiff and some of its members are citizens of the same state with the defendants the cause cannot be removed. The United States court has no jurisdiction.

68. Congress never intended to authorize the defendant to remove any suit or proceeding before a state court, unless the circuit court of the United States had jurisdiction of the subject matter of such suit, and had power to do substantial justice between the parties.

69. A complainant in an interpleader suit, is more than a nominal party; although the parties to an interpleader suit live in different states, still the cause will not, before the complaint is dismissed, be removed to a United States court.

70. Where one of the defendants is an alien he has a right at once to have the cause removed to the United States court, notwithstanding an injunction has been issued, and an attachment granted for its violation.

71. One of several defendants sued in the state court in a bailable action, who is entitled to have the cause removed in the United States court, may, on entering an appearance for all the defendants at the time of presenting the petition, have the cause removed without putting in special bail in the state court.

72. The state court (in this state) has a discretion to remove a cause into either of the two judicial districts of the United States in this state. It will remove a cause to a particular district, where substantial reasons of convenience are shown by a party,

73. The giving of a notice of retainer for the defendant, is not the entering an appearance in the suit, so as to require the filing of a petition at the same time, for the removal of the cause to the United States court.

74. Where one of several defendants only is served with capias in an action of tortreturned as to the others not found, he can make application for the removal of the cause into the United States court without joining the other defendants.

75. A corporation of another state, sued by four plaintiffs, three of whom are aliens and one a citizen of this state, cannot remove the cause into the United States court. Such a defendant is not entitled to remove the cause, unless all the plaintiffs are severally citizens of this state.

76. An agreement made between the respective parties and their attorneys that the defendant have further time to answer-no notice of appearance having been given, is not the entering of an appearance, so as to preclude the application to remove the cause to the United States court.

77. It is settled in this state, that a notice of retainer given by an attorney for the defendant, does not preclude an application to remove the cause into the United States court.

78. In order to remove a cause into the United States court, the state court must be satisfied of two things. 1. The alienage or citizenship in another state of the petitioner; next, that the sum in dispute exceeds $500; both these facts must be made out to the satisfaction of the court. The mode of satisfying the court is not prescribed or indicated.

79. Where there are several defendants real parties in interest, each of them must be a resident of a different state from that of the plaintiff to entitle a defendant to remove the cause to the United States court.

80. Where a joint judgment has benn obtained against several defendants, one only being served with process, and he being a resident of the state and the others non

residents, on proceedings by the plaintiff against the non-resident defendants to show cause why they should not be bound by the judgment, they cannot have the cause removed into the United States court on the ground of their residence. Such proceeding is not an action, but a further proceeding in the old action.

81. Where an action is brought on a chose in action by and in the name of assignee, as now required in this state, and in case of the removal of the cause to the United States court, the assignor would have to be substituted as plaintiff according to the rules and practice of the latter court, and he being a citizen of the same state with the defendant, the cause cannot be removed into the United States court.

82. Where the right of a defendant to remove a cause into the United States court is extremely doubtful the state court should not exercise its power of removal.

83. A foreign insurance company, created by the laws of another state, by doing business in this state under and in compliance with our laws and by the appointment of an agent to represent it and accept the service of process issuing out of the courts of this state, surrenders the right to be treated as a citizen of another state, as to actions commenced against it by a citizen of this state, and cannot remove such an action to the United States court on the ground of being a citizen of another state.

84. Whether the act of congress, passed March 3, 1863, entitled "an act relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases," is constitutional and calid, so far as it provides for the removal of a cause from a state to the United States court, upon interposing a defence under and by virtue of an order of the President of the United States in an action by the plaintiff for damages caused by an alleged irresponsible arrest, by a civil officer of the United States.-Doubtful.-The weight of authority seems to be against its constitutionality.

Manner of Transfer to United States court.-Petition.

85. The affidavit, on a motion to remove a cause to the United States court, on the ground of citizenship, must state expressly that one of the parties is a citizen of another

state.

86. It is not necessary that the petitioner, on applying for the removal of a cause to the United States court, should sign the petition personally-it may be signed by an attorney of the court.

Bond.

87. It is not necessary that the bond given on applying for the removal of a cause to the United States court, should be signed by the petitioner-it is sufficient if signed by the sureties only.

88. Where the suit is commenced against a firm who are residents of another state, by a plaintiff residing in this state, and process served on one only of the defendants, it is not necessary that the other defendants should join in the petition for removal with the defendant served, nor that the bond should be conditioned for the appearance of any defendant but the petitioner.

89. A bond in the penalty of $1000, given on application for the removal of a cause to the United States court, is sufficient, although the declaration claims damages for $14,000; the defendant not having been held to bail in this court. The bond should also be several as well as joint.

Appearance.

90. Where one of two defendants is a citizen of another state, and there is no joint trust, interest or duty in the subject matter of the controversy, he may be allowed to appear and defend alone, so as to enable him to remove the cause into the United States court.

91. If a defendant intends to remove a cause into the United States court, he must file his petition &c., for that purpose at the time of entering his appearance in this (the state)

court.

92. Where, after filing his answer, the defendant is heard by his counsel on the merits of the bill and answer, and the court makes a decretal order in the cause, it is too late to apply for a removal of the cause to the United States court.

93. The usual mode of appearing in this (state) court, is by entering an appearance with one of the clerk's of the court. But a notice by the defendants' solicitor of an ap pearance, given to the plaintiff's solicitor, without an entry in the clerk's minutes, would it seems, be binding on the party.

94. An appearance filed with the register (clerk), is an appearance on the records of the court, and will be considered an appearance entered for the purpose of removing the cause.

95. Executing an undertaking by a defendant on his arrest, is not an appearance in the action, nor equivalent to an actual appearance, within the meaning of the words "entering an appearance," as used in the act of congress, for the purpose of the removal of a cause.

96. Where defendants appear by counsel in open court, upon the argument of a motion for injunction-read affidavits to oppose it-the indorsement of such affidavits with the names of the attorneys of the parties, and a recital of all this in an order of the court, it is conclusive of an appearance in the state court.

97. The right of a defendant to remove a cause into the United States court, is lost where he moves in the state court to discharge an order of arrest. It is equivalent to an appearance.

Motion for order of removal.

98. A rule is adopted in some of the state courts not to grant an order of removal of a cause without notice or an order to show cause.

99. An ex parte order removing a cause to the United States court, was held sufficient, or at least was refused by the supreme court to be vacated on motion.

100. Affidavits may be read in opposition to the petition for the removal of a cause to the United States court.

Form of and effect of order.

101. See Carpenter agt. The N. Y. and New Haven R. R. Co., 11 How., 481—supra, for the form of an order.

102. The order for removal may provide that it shall not operate of itself to dissolve an injunction which has been issued in the cause.

103. When an order of removal has once been properly made, the state court is precluded from acting or taking any proceeding in the cause. Even the vacating the order of removal cannot reinvest the state court with jurisdiction.

Proceedings after removal.

104. The defendant must appear in the circuit court of the United States, before the next term of that court, and enter special bail where an order of arrest had issued in the state court, and file copies of the process.

105. The plaintiff must file a new declaration in the circuit court of the United States after the removal. And certified copies of the process and papers by which the suit was commenced in the state court, should be sent to and entered in the United States court.

106. The Code has no application to canses removed from this state courts to the United States courts after the removal. The proceedings in the United States court after the removal, must be the same as if the suits had been originally commenced in the latter court.

107. The declaration filed in the United States court is to be in the names of the parties recognized by the rules and practice of the latter court, and the plaintiff is entitled to have orders entered for the continuance of the cause in such names, without preju