original bill to annul a will as a muniment of title, and to restrain the enforcement of a cO,qrt the will had been esupon th,e ,g,round. decree was by false and msuffiClent tesU'tndny.'T1ilsdeclslon prooeeded upon tbegroulld that, as the a iq equity to impeaph a dec,ree on and as the courts of the state could, entertain such a biU,isiriiiIar authority was 'Vested in federal the decree' to be atfected by the ,proceeding was a decree ofa state court. In the subsequent case of Barrow v.' HuntOn,.99 U. S. 82, it' was also held that an original bill in equity, brought to set aside a !lecree on the ground of fraild, m.llybe maintained in, the courts'of the' United' States, though the assailed· is thatofa state iHbunal. It wafi further held, however, in case, that an attack. upon a JUdgment of a state court cannot be entertained by a federal court, ,,\vhl;lre'theproceeding is tantamount to a motion to set a judgment aside for irregularity, or to a writ of error, or to a petition or bill of review. Proceedings of the latter character, as a matter of course,are' on1ymnintainable. in the court where the record remains. Proceedings to nullifyjudgmeIits of state courts, or to enjoin parties from asserting any rights thereunder, have also' 'b.een entertained' by sevetlll: circuit, ,courts. of the -United States. Thusin,Amoryv. Amory, 12 Amer.LawReg. N. S. 585, Judge DRUM-, MOND,':sittingin the circuit court for the: district of Wisconsin, entertainl;ld ,bill to enjoin parties ,from asserting any rights under a decree of York, ,the bill showing that the decree had, been fraudulently obtained in the state court... See, also, decisions"totbe same effectiinSmith v. Sahwed,9 .Fed. Rep. 483, and Sahlgarllrv. Ke:nnedy, 1,McGll&ry,291, Fed. Rep. 295. In-view of these authorities,Iconclude,tbat it is no objection to an original bill in; a iederalcou.rt to ,enjoin .a party, from asserting rightS under a judgment Qt,decree, on the ground of fraud practiced in procuring it, that the Judgment or decl'oo.inquestion was rendered by 81 state court. Itfollows , of.course, thatdt.isDoobjection to this proceeding that the otder of naturalization was, entered in the St. Louis court of criminal instead of aeo,utt of the United·States. On the contrary, the fac.t that oourthaslOo.. ,equity Jurisdiction, no power to entertain 8 bjll M,revi(lw"and no power to "set aside -an order of naturalizationop nmtion, rathersttengthens the right of the government to sue in -this court; jf. in. poitltQf ,fact the fraud: complained of is of that character that to-invalidate: 8 judgment.: '; This' leads ,to the. seoondimportaut inquiry involved in the ease, whether: :the watterslwarred .in the bill IVe sufficient to sustain it, treatil:lKltas pro¢eeding .to ,impeach a judgment on the ground of fraud., ,Whegist of the. oomplaint seerosto be that an alieni, not at the, ttme entiUe<J.. to any provision oLthe, laws: of the. Was nev,:ertht'Jessadmitted, 'on his own application to be,. cornea. citiZlE1n, by; 8 .conn .hay,ing jurisdietion of natilralization proceediJ;lgs, rib,Qutthe of any witnessel:lin support of the appli;without anyinqui,ry whatever by the court before:whom.thei
'proceeding took plaM as to the qualifications of the/applicant tor .ship. 'As-the bill aversthat'ho witnesses' were examined, and no testi. mony whs offered or heard, it affirmatively appears that the decree of 'naturalization; was not obtained by means of false or perjl,uea. testimony given in the course of the hearing, even if proof Of that kind, without evidence of other fraudulent acts, would be sufficient to llnnul the ordm of naturalization, on an original bill filed for that purpose. It is true that the bill charges in one paragraph thafdefendant knew that the recitals contained in the decree of naturalization to him granted were false, and that the decree had b£'en .procured by"imposition and fraud practiced on the court." It is also true that the bill in another paragraph the decree in question, "contriving and charges that defendant conniving to work a fraud upon * * * the court," and that he accepted the decree knowing. that "the court had been imposed upon," ,and had granted the decree "through mistake of the true facts," etc. But these averments do not aid the bill in'liD.ymaterial respect, because in no place is the defendant, Ofll:ny one acting in his behalf, accused of any fraudulent acts or conduct calculated to impose upon or deceive the court beforel,V'hom the proceeding wall pending. It will not do, in a bill of this character, to show merely that the judgment assailed is erroneous, and to have been etlteredj neither will it suffice to charge generally that it was fraudulently procured, Of that the court was imposed upon. A state of facts must be disclosed by the bill from which the court can see that the conclusions stated by the pleader, to the effect that the ju.dgment was fraudulently procured, etc., are properly drawn. It is apparent, I think, from the whole scope and tenor of the complaint, that it was drawn upon the theory that the defendant was guilty of a fraud in presenting himself before the court as a. candidate for naturalization, knowing, as he is alleged to have known, that he was not then entitled, under any pmvisions of the laws of the United StatE\S, to become a citizen. If the bill discloses any fraud committed by the defendant,it is a fraud of that description, and none other. But as I have recently had occasion to rule, in the course of the trial of indictments for naturalization frauds in the district court, a person does not commit a fraud, in a le?;al sense, by merely applying to a court of justice for relief, or for the grant of some privilege, even though the applicant believes that under the law, rightly administered, he is not entitled to the relief sought or to the privilege claimed. Whatever a person's own opinion may be touching his right to relienn a given case, he is entitled to take the judgment of a court having jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and in so doing he commits no fraud. A litigant in such case only crosses the line dividing legal frauds from conduct that is merely reprehensible from a moral stand-point, when he resorts to false testi. mony, or'to some trick or artifice, with a view of deceiving the'court, and thereby obtaining a judgment to whi.ch he is not entitled. The present bill neither shows that the decreesonght t.6 be avoided was procured by false testimony given an behalf of the applicant on the hearing of the application for naturalization, or by, means of any other fraudu-
indeed, that, tl:1e decree was and is erroneous, and Jp,at ltwlls likewise, irregular, in that there was no such judicial inquiry as the act of congress contemplates shall be had in such cas'esl' but these a.re defects in the decree which can neither be remedied bill of this norby,this court. The demurrer is accordingly spstained.
Apt Congo March 1887, (24 U. S. St. 552, ) amending' Act COilg'. March 8, 1875, prondGs, in section 1, that circuit courts of the United' States shall have original cogconcurrent with the state ,oou:rt$, of all civil suits in certain cases, among whi'dJi are suits between citizens of difterent states, when t,qe lllatter in dispnte exceed'S $2,000. SectioD"g provides that any suit of whicl1 the circuit courts are given o,riginal jurisdiction by the preoeding sectjon may be removed by defendant from the state to the cirouit oourt; and further declares: "And where a sU,it is now pending, or may be hereafter brought, in any state court, in which there is a contr0;v'ersy betweell" of different states, defendant, being a non-reSident, may remove the suit to the circuit court of the United States, at any time before trial, 'IWh,e,n,it"shall be made, t"o appear to sa,id c,ircuit court that, from prejudice or local he will not beil!ble to obtain justice in such state court." Beld, that the prE!Jud,ice aild local influence clause in section 2 is to be read in connectioll with sectidti Ii and does not giV'e the circuit coUrt jurisdiction 9n such grounds uDless the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000. '
RE;MOVAL OJ!' CAUSlIS-PRBJUDlOEl..,JURISDIOTlONAL AMOUNT.
to the,st.ate court. , '"", , Oong. 'March 3J 1887, ;(24 'O.,S. St. 552,)umending Act Congo MarQP 1875,provides,in section.1, that "cirQuit courts of the United States shall ,have origin\l(l cqgnizanGlil, concurrent with the courts :of the several states, ofall suiUi,of a, civil nature at common law or in equity, in dispute exceeds, exclusive ofinterest and costs, the sUqJ",ory8Iue of arising under the constitution or laws of the * * * ,or in which there shall be a controversy between t states, in which the matter in qispute exceeds, exelusive ci and sum qr vp.lue a.foresaid. * * *" The secthat "any suit, of a civil nature, at law or in equity, the constitution or laws, of the United States., * * of whi(;ibe the circuit cour,ts of the Upited States are given original jurisqiction\ly the preceding section, which may now be pending, or which be ,brought, in allY, state court, mlty be removed by the defendillt orde:fendants thereinto the circuit coqrtof the United States for tliepJ:6per district., ' * * And where a Buit is 'now pending, or maYPj1 in anY'iltate court, in which there h:! a con,8 citizen of the s,tate in which the is brought and a. stAW" being a citizer,lof ar,lother state,
M9 t}.QntoRemand Cl;tuse from .thecircuitcourtof the United States