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
WILSON V. UNION SAY. ASS'N.
may remove such suit to the circuit court of the United States for the proper district, at any time. before the trial thereof, when it shall be made to appear to said circuit court that from prejudice or local influence he will not be. able to obtain justice in such state court. ... ... *" L. E. Stanton,.for plaintiff. Daniel Davenport and William N. O'Hara, for defendant.
WALLAC1i:, J. The question in these cases is whether, under the local prejudice clause of the act of March 3. 1887, the matter in dispute must exceed in amount the sum of $2,000 to entitle the defendant to remove the suit from a state court. This question has been considered in several of the circuits, with a diversity of opinion as to the true construC'tion of the clause. My own views accord with those expressed by Mr. Justice HARLAN in Malonev. Railroad Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 625, and it is unnecessary to reiterate his reasons for the conclusion reached. I think it was the intention of congress to place the right of removal for local prejudice upon the jurisdictional basis of all other removable controversies, discriminating in favor of the defendant only as to the time of making,the application, and permitting a single defendant to remove. The motion to remand is granted.
WILSON '0. UNION SAY. ASS'N
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Mi88ouri, E. D. March 10, 1890.)
'.roWI\Ship .bonds issued in aid of 8 railroad company were, with the assent of t.lle com.pan.y, deposited by the township .trustee in a. bank, a.nd a. receiPt. taken binding bank to surrender them upon the joint order of the trustee and a contractor to whom they were to be paid for construction work. It was agreed between the trustee and the contractor that the bonds were not to be delivered to the latter till he had paid all debts for labor ilndsupplies on the work in the township. These payments the contractor failed to make. Held, on a bill by his assignee J;o compel thedeIivery of the bonds, that the assignor had failed to comply with the conditions precedent on which he was to receive them, and that the assigp.eehacl no title.
.Am BONDS-DELIVEl\y-No:-:-PERFOl\MANOJl OF CONDITIONS.
SAME-LJlGALiT1" OF ISSUE-CANOELLATION.
The bondS were in of the amount which the township was authorized to issue, and were obtained from the state treasurer on a false certificate by the townsllip, trustee that the conditions on which they were issued had been co'niplied with. The railway company was cognizant of the fraud, and receipted to the treasurel' for the bonds, but never had actual possession of them, though it assented to their delivery to the contractor by the township trustee in payment for construction work. Held, that this did not cbnstitute a negotiation of the bonds to an innocent purchaser; /lnd, as tlle conditiol\s on which they were issued had not beem com.; plied with, the consideration had faVed, and the township was entitled· to a decree , for their surrender and cancellation.
In Equtty. . This is a controversy as to right of possession of 22 bonds, of the denomin,ation of $500 eacb, issued by Oswego township, of the state of Which, at the date of the filing of the bill, were in the actual