The circuit court has no jurisdiction to enjoin the proceedings of a State court. Nor can it stay proceedings in the State court; but it has jurisdiction to grant a provisional remedy before the first day of the next term on which a party must enter a copy of his record; and it may protect a party by injunction against a judgment in the State court, rendered after a proper application for removal, but ex parte orders to restrain proceedings will be issued only where there is danger from irreparable injury from delay.9 The Federal courts may protect a party by injunction after a proper application to remove has been made.10 So the right of intervenors to an injunction follows as a matter of course. 11 An application to dissolve an injunction cannot be heard before the return day, when it involves the consideration of the case as an entirety, and the dissolution could not be granted without changing the status of the parties. Where the United States Supreme Court reverses the decision of a State court, in plaintiff's favor, and directs the State court to proceed no further in the cause, a stay will not be granted until costs of the State court are paid, except as to the amount awarded by the United States Supreme court. 13

66

12

1 Harrison Wire Co. v. Wheeler, 11 Fed. Rep. 206: Kern v. Huidekoper, 2 Morr. Trans. 617; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 379.

2 Bell v. Dix, 49 N. Y. 232; Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362. 3 Commercial & Sav. Bank v. Corbett, 5 Sawy. 172; following Mahoney Min. Co. v. Bennett, 4 Sawy. 289.

4 French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250.

5 People v. Detroit Sup. Ct. Judges, 41 Mich. 31.

6 French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362; Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 23; Stix v. Keith, 7 South. Rep. 423.

7 In re Barnesville & Moorhead R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 10.

8 N. O. City R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 160.

9 Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810.

10 Smith v. Schwel, 11 The Report, 730; Duncan v. Green, 101 U. S. 810. 11 Benedict v. Williams, 10 Fed. Rep. 208.

12 Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 238. 13 Tugman v. Nat. S. S. Co., 24 Blatchf. 306.

§ 109 i. Preservation of property pending proceedings for removal.-What the court should do in this as in all cases where the record is here before the return day, is by all proper orders to preserve the property in dispute, and the rights of all the litigants.1

DESTY REMOVALS. -33.

1 New Orleans City R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 160; Whelan v. New York etc. R. Co. (Ohio), 35 Fed. Rep. 849.

§ 109 j. Power of court to protect rights.—As jurisdiction over the case itself is not to be left in absolute suspense between its cessation in the State court and the next session of the United States circuit court, the very necessities of justice, and the preservation of the rights of the plaintiff, would demand that the latter court should exert its jurisdictional power, under certain contingencies, ad interim. This it may do on presentation of the record and notice to the adverse party, in the instance of issuing the writ of injunction, or some restraining order to preserve the status of the case, or to appoint a receiver, and to issue a writ of attachment in aid of the suit. 2 The prohibition in the Judiciary Act against courts of the United States enjoining proceedings in State courts has no application where the case has been removed from the State court into the circuit court. In such case an injunction against collecting a judgment obtained in the State court by wrongfully proceeding with the cause may be properly allowed. But the writ will not be issued if the jurisdiction of the United States court of the case removed is doubtful. A plaintiff may be enjoined from pressing the trial of a cause in the State court, where proper petition and bond has been filed for its removal to the Federal court, and the judgment rendered in such latter court.

6

1 Kansas City & T. R. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 11; Whelan v. New York etc. R. Co., supra.

2 Dill. Rem. Causes, 5th ed., 71; Mahoney Min. Co. v. Bennett, 4 Sawy, 289; New Orleans City R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 160; Re Barnesville & M. R. Co., 2 McCrary, 216; 4 Fed. Rep. 10.

3 French v. Hay, 89 U. S. 250.

4 French v. Hay, 89 U. S. 250.

5 Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. Rep. 819.

6 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Ford, 35 Fed. Rep. 170.

§ 110. Process, not affected by. That when any suit shall be removed from a State court to a circuit court of the United States, any attachment or sequestration of the goods or estate of the defendant had in such suit in the State court shall

hold the goods or estate so attached or sequester-d to answer the final judgment or decree in the same manner as by law they would have been held to answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the court in which such suit was commenced; and all bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such suit prior to its removal shall remain valid and effectual notwithstanding said removal; and all injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such suit prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the court to which such suit shall be removed. (Act of March 3, 1875, sec. 4.)

§ 110 a. In general.-The statutes of 1833, 1863 and 1868 are statutes where the right of removals depends on the subject-matter of the suit; and under all three acts the whole suit must be removed.2 The jurisdiction of the circuit court under the Act of 1863 is not taken away by the Act of 1867;3 but so much of this section as provides for the removal of a judgment where the cause was tried by a jury is in conflict with the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution and is void. Orders made in the State court, but not complied with, should be recog nized and enforced after removal, unless set aside or modified in the Federal court.5 Original process includes any process i suing out of the State court. This section is not affected by the provisions of Rev. Stats., sec. 720.7 1 Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362.

2 Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362.

3 Lamar v. Dana, 10 Blatchf. 34.

4 Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274.

5 Williams Mow. & R. Co. v. Raynor, 7 Biss. 245.

6 Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107.

7 Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 24.

§ 110 b. Original process.-The intention of this section is to clothe the circuit court with the powers of the State court in administering remedies;1 and if an attachment prevail over an assignment under the State law, it

66

will have the same effect in the circuit court;2 and if an injunction has been granted, it remains in force until modified or dissolved by the circuit court.3 Original process" includes mesne process issuing out of the State court; so an attachment, though issued after summons, is preserved. * So a motion to dissolve an attachment may be made after removal to the circuit court.5 It is the intention of the law to authorize and require that the question of dissolving, continuing or perpetuating an injunction shall be dealt with by the courts of the United States.

1 Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.

2 Clarke v. F. C. & M. Ins. Co., 21 Law Reporter, 394.

3 Northwestern D. Co. v. Corse, 4 Biss. 514; McLeod v. Duncan, 5 McLean, 312; Peters v. Peters, 41 Ga. 242. See Hatch v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 105.

4 Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107. But see New England Screw Co. v. Bliven, 3 Blatchf. 240.

5 Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.

6 Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 24. See In re County Judges of Virginia, 3 Hughes, 576.

§ 110 c. Attachments.-The circuit court becomes clothed with the powers of the State court under this section. And attachments hold the property after removal; and if the party had made application for an attachment, he may proceed to get an attachment after the removal. If an action by attachment against a non-resident is removed, the circuit court may proceed in the cause; and if it takes precedence over an assignment under the State law the circuit court may enforce it; but if it be a separate process, it will not carry with it a lien on the property in case of removal. A motion to dissolve an attachment when authorized by the State law may be marie in the circuit court, and if denied may be renewed, in the discretion of the court; such motion may be made after removal if authorized under the State laws and practice. Where attachment suits are removed, the rule of distribution and priority of liens will be the same as it would in a State court.9

8

1 Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.

2 New England Screw Co. v. Bliven, 3 Blatchf. 240. See, under Judiciary Act, Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107.

3 Bills v. N. O., St. L. & C. R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 227.

4 U. S. v. Ottman, 1 Hughes, 313.

5 Clarke v. F. C. & M. Ins. Co.. 21 Law Reporter, 394.

6 New England Screw Co. v. Bliven, 3 Blatchf. 240.

7 Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.

8 Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.

9 Bankers M. & T. Co. v. Chicago C. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 398.

§ 110 d. Injunction.--An injunction issued by a State court remains in force till modified or dissolved by the circuit court; and it may maintain, continue, modify, or dissolve the injunction issued by the State court.2 Upon the modification of an injunction it may require, as a condition, that defendant gave a bond to secure plaintiff against any injury which may result, or to perform the final decree concerning the same. Upon removal, an injunction will not be dissolved upon the ground that the bill filed was not verified according to law and practice of the courts of chancery. An application to dissolve an injunction could not be considered before the return day, where it involved the case as an entirety, or where it would change the status of the parties.5 Under the Act of 1866 an injunc ion issued by the S ate court was, ipso facto, dissolved by the removal, as no mention is made of injunctions in said act.6

4

1 Peters v. Peters, 41 Ga. 242.

2 Watson v. Bondurant, 2 Woods, 166; Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. Rep. 455.

3 City of Portland v. Oregonian R. Co., 7 Pac. Coast L. J. 376.

4 Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. Rep. 455.

5 New Orleans R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 169.

6 McLeod v. Duncan, 5 McLean, 343; Hatch v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co, 6 Blatchf. 105.

3

§ 110 e. Effect of removal. The removal transfers the res with the cause, as a necessary part of the proceedings; and the fact that a collateral issue with respect to the res has sprung up cannot destroy the right of removal. So if a receiver has been appointed in the State court, he may be compelled to account in the circuit court after hearing. The removal does not render a delivery bond imperative, nor change the obligations of the sureties; nor is the action of the State court stayed pending the decision of the Federal court as to the right of removal. It does not change the nature of the issue, or the judgment to be rendered. If the cause was at issue in the State court, no other pleadings are necessary in the