waiver of his right to object to the service on him while attending as a witness in another State. (Atchison v. Morris, 11 Fed. Rep. 582; 11 Biss. 191.)

Authority of court.-Proceedings had in the State court are not vacated by the removal. (Harrison Wire Co. v. Wheeler, 11 Fed. Rep. 206; Kern v. Huidekoper, 2 Morr. Trans. 617; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 379.) The removal takes the case in the condition in which it was when the State court was deprived of its jurisdiction (Bell v. Dix, 49 N. Y. 232; Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362); and where an action commenced in a State court in which the distinction between legal and equitable procedure is done away with is removed, it is removed to that side of the court where appropriate relief can be obtained. (Commercial & Sav. Bk. v. Corbett, 5 Sawy. 172; following Mahoney Min. Co. v. Bennett, 4 Sawy. 289.) And for the purpose of jurisdiction, the circuit court has power to ascertain the real matter in dispute, and arrange the parties on one side or the other. (French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250.) The circuit court has no jurisdiction to enjoin the proceedings of a State court. (People v. Detroit Sup. Ct. Judges, 41 Mich. 31.) Nor can it stay proceedings in the State court (French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250); 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 (In re Barnesville & Moorehead R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 10; 2 McCrary, 216); and it may protect a party by injunction against a judgment in the State court, rendered after a proper application for removal (N. O. City R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 160); but er parte orders to restrain proceedings will be issued only where there is danger from irreparable injury from delay. (Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810.) The Federal courts may protect a party by injunction after a proper application to remove has been made. (Smith v. Schwed, 11 The Reporter, 730; Duncan v. Green, 100 U. S. 810.) So the right of intervenors to an injunction follows as a matter of course. (Benedict v. Williams, 10 Fed. Rep. 208; 20 Blatchf. 276.) 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 dis

solution could not be granted without changing the status of the parties. (Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 298.)

§ 112. 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 sequestered 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 renoval; and all injunctions, orders, and other prozeedings had in such suit prior to its removal shall emain in full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the court to which such suit shall be emoved. (Act of March 3, 1875, sec. 4; 18 U. S. tats. 470; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 175. Rev. Stats. ec. 646 superseded.

See Desty's REMOVAL, Sec. 110.

Original process.-The intention of this section is to othe the circuit court with the powers of the State court administering remedies (Garden City Manuf. Co. v. aith, 1 Dill. 305); and if an attachment prevail over an signment under the State law, it will have the same ect in the circuit court (Clarke v. F. C. & M. Ins. Co., Law Reporter, 394); and if an injunction has been nted, it remains in force until modified or dissolved by : circuit court. (Northwestern D. Co. v. Corse, 4 Biss. ; McLeod v. Duncan, 5 McLean, 342; Peters v. Peters, Ga. 242; see Hatch v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 tehf. 105.) "Original process" includes mesne process

issuing out of the State court; so an attachment, though is sued after summons, is preserved. (Barney v. Globe Bank. 5 Blatchf. 107; but see New England Screw Co. v. Bliver.. 3 Blatch. 240.) So a motion to dissolve an attachmer: may be made after removal to the circuit court. (Garde City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.) It is the inten tion of the law to authorize and require that the questio of dissolving, continuing or perpetuating an injunctic shall be dwelt with by the courts of the United States (Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. Rep. 24; see In re County Judge of Virginia, 3 Hughes, 576.)

In general. The object of this section is to secure i each State one method of procedure in all common-law cases and to adopt the procedure of the State courts (Bills v. St. Lawrence & C. R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 227.) Th statutes of 1833, 1863 and 1868 are statutes where the ! right of removal depends on the subject-matter of th suit (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., Blatchf. 362), and under all three acts the whole suit must be removed. (Fisk Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362.) The jurisdiction c the circuit court under the Act of 1863 is not taken away by the Act of 1867 (Lamar v. Dana, 10 Blatchf. 34); so much of this section as provides for the removal of a judgment where the cause was tried by a jury is in con flict with the seventh amendment to the Constitution. and is void. (Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274.) Orders made in the State court, but not complied with, should be recognized and enforced after removal, unless set aside or modified in the Federal court. (Williams Mow. & R. Co. v. Raynor, 7 Biss. 245.) Original process_includes any process issuing out of the State court. (Barney v Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107.) This section is not affected by the provisions of Revised Statutes, section seven hundred and twenty. (Perry v. Sharp, 8 Fed. Rep. 24.)

Attachments.-The circuit court becomes clothed with the powers of the State court under this section. (Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.) And attachments hold the property after removal (New En gland Screw Co. v. Bliven, 3 Blatchf. 240; see under Judiciary Act, Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107): and if the party had made application for an attachment.

he may proceed to get an attachment after removal. (Bills v. N. O. St. L. & C. R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 227.) If an action by attachment against a non-resident is removed, the circuit court may proceed in the cause (U. S. v. Ottoman, 1 Hughes, 313); and if it takes precedence over an assign. ment under the State law the circuit court may enforce it (Clarke v. F. C. & M. Ins. Co., 21 Law Reporter, 394); but if it be a separate process, it will not carry with it a lien on the property in case of removal. (New England Screw Co. v. Bliven, 3 Blatchf. 240) A motion to dissolve an attachment when authorized by the State law may be made in the circuit court, and if denied may be renewed at the discretion of the court (Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305); such motion may be made after removal if authorized under State laws and practice. (Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.)

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. (Watson v. Boudurant, 2 Woods, 166; Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. Rep. 455; 2 McCrary, 441.) Upon the modification of an inunction it may require, as a condition, that defendant give a bond to secure plaintiff against any injury which may result, or to perform the final decree concerning the ame. (City of Portland v. Oregon Railway Co., 7 Sawy. 12.) Upon removal an injunction will not be dissolved pon the ground that the bill filed was not verified acording to law and practice of the courts of chancery. Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. Rep. 455; 2 McCrary, 441.) n application to dissolve an injunction could not be condered before the return day, where it involved the case an entirety, or where it would change the status of the rties. (New Orleans City R. Co. v. Crescent City R. ., 5 Fed. Rep. 160.) Under the Act of 1866 an injuncon issued by the State Court was ipso facto dissolved by e removal, as no mention is made of injunctions in said t. (McLeod v. Duncan, 5 McLean, 343; Hatch v. Chigo, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 105.)

113. Dismissal, when.—That if, in any it commenced in a circuit court, or removed from

a State court to a circuit court of the United States, it shall appear to the satisfaction of said circuit court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said circuit court, or that the parties to said suit have improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating & case cognizable or removable under this act; the said circuit court shall proceed no farther therein. but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court from which it was removed, as justice may require. and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just [but the order of said circuit court dismissing or remanding said cause to the State court shall be reviewable by the Supreme Court on writ of error or appeal, as the case may be*]. (Act of March 3. 1875, sec. 5; 18 U. S. Stats. 470; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 175. See Amendments, 1887-88, p. 884 m.) *This last clause repealed by Act of 1887; 25 U. S. Stats. 433, sec. 6, See DESTY'S REMOVAL, Sec. 112.

When a cause removed from State to circuit court will or will not be remanded. (See Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187; Colins v. Wellington, 31 Fed Rep. 244; Rumsey v. Call, 28 Fed. Rep. 769; Carsan v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421; Lazensky v. Supreme Lodge K of H., 32 Fed. Rep. 417; Anderson v. Appleton, 32 Fed. Rep. 855; Perry v. Clift, 32 Fed. Rep. 801; Manley v. Olney, 32 Fed. Rep. 708.) On motion to remand, the court will not inquire into the truth of the allegations or sufficiency of the pleadings, but will leave such matters to the trial of the case. (Hux v. Caspar, 31 Fed. Rep. 499.)

Order of remand not appealable. Since the Act of March 3, 1887, took effect, the Supreme Court has no