The view taken of the question by Judge. Woo<1s and J'udge Blatchford, in the cases cited, (3 Woods, 413; 16 Blatchf. 309; and 9 Rep. 569,) has also been adopted by the Bupreme conrt of Georgia in Jackson v. The Mut. Ins. Go. 60 Ga. 423, and by the court commission of Chio in Phcenix Life Ins. Go. v. Saettel, 7 Cent. L.Jour. 398. I hold, therefore, UP0J;l what 1 regard the weight of author· ity, and as, a correct interpretation of the act of 1875, independent of authority, that the right of removal under that act is not dependent upon citizenship when the suit was commenced in the state court, but that if the requirei citi. zenship exists at the time the petition for removal is filed in the state court, that is sufficient. Motion to rema:J;ld overruled.
See BfAjde v. OhfAjney, i'TI/rlS.
BEEDE v. CHEENEY and others.
(Circuit Cowt, D.Min'IUJ8otfJ.
R!moVAL--BOND APPROVED BY STATE OOURT.
In a case of removal the jurisdiction of the federal court does not depend upon the form or substance of the bond approved by the state court.
BAME-WHEN REQUISITE CrrIZENSHIP MUST ExIST.
ground that the petition was in the present tense.-[ED.
Motion to Remand. M. O. Little, for plaintiff. A. Oppenheim and W. P. Warner, for defendant. MOClU.RY, C. J. In this case there is a. motion to remand on the ground that the bond accepted by the state court to secure the filing of the transcript in this court, and the payment 01
OSBon II. OBBOBll.
any eosts that might arise because otthe wrongful removal, is not such a bond as the statute requires. We are of opinion that the jurisdiction of this court in a case removed from So state court does not depend upon the form, nor even upon the substance, of the bond which is presented 'to and approved by the state court before removaL lUhe statute in other respects is complied with, and So copy of the record is filed here in accordance with the statute, the removalis complete. But, upon looking into this record, we observe what counsel seem to have overlooked-the petition for the removal of the cause into this court is in the present tense. It states that the de. fendants are residents of another state. Under the judiciary act of 1789 the supreme court has held that the record must show the citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the action. In a case recently decided in St. Louis, where Justice Miller was present in court, it was held that the same rule prevails under the act of 1875, and that the petition for removal under that act must also show the eitizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the action, and not at the time of the application for re· moval. On that ground, therefore, this case must be remanded. Although the motion does not present that question, the court is bound as to that jurisdictional matter, and to take notice 01 it without any formal motion.
Bee Ourtin v. Decketr, .upra.
OSBORN f1. OSBORN
(a,""it oourt, D. Minnuota.
REMoVAL-LoOAL PREJUDICE ACT-FINAL HEARma IN STATE CoURT.
The submission of a case to a jury does not constitute a" tinal hear. ing," within the meaning of the "local prejudice act," when there has been a partial disagreement &II to the verdict.
CHANCERY CASE-VERDICT 011' JURy-MINNESOTA STATUTE.
Under the peculiar provisions of the statute of Minnesota, the submission of the facts of a chancery case to a jury render the verdict a necessary part of the tinal trial of the causo.-IED.
Motion to Remand.