cuit court has no jurisdiction of an action by the assignee of a national bank to restrain the sale of bonds deposited to secure its notes. (Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 8 Blatchf. 282.) A national bank may sue the maker of a note assigned to it (Mitchell v. Walker, 36 Leg. Int. 64); or may sue on a coupon of a municipal bond. (First Nat. Bank v. Bennington, 16 Blatchf. 53.) The mere grant to a corporation of the right to sue does not imply a right to sue in the Federal courts. (Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Bank of U. S. v. Martin, 5 Peters, 479.) The tenth subdivision of this section has been repealed by statute (Acts of 188182, ch. 290, sec. 4), and a national bank cannot now maintain a suit against residents of its own State and judicial district. (Nat. Bank of Jefferson v. Fore, Cir. Ct. Tex., 25 Fed. Rep. 209.) A Federal court cannot issue a writ of attachment before final judgment against a national bank. (Butler v. Coleman, 124 U. S. 721.) § 91. No appellate jurisdiction. - The last sentence of sec. 1 of the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 U. S. Stats. 470, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon circuit courts in suits arising in the district courts, was repealed by the Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 4. (Act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals, 26 U. S. Stats. 829.) § 92. Concurrent with court of claims. -The circuit courts of the United States shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court of claims in all cases where the amount of such claim exceeds one thousand dollars and does not exceed ten thousand dollars, and all causes brought for trial shall be tried by the court without a jury. (24 U. S. Stats. 505, sec. 2. § 93 (637). Jurisdiction of cases transferred from district courts on account of disability, etc.—When any cause, civil or criminal, of whatever nature, is removed into a circuit court, as provided by law, from a district court wherein the same is cognizable, on account of the disability of the judge of such district court, or by reason of his being concerned in interest therein, or having been of counsel for either party, or being so related to or connected with either party to such cause as to render it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial thereof, such circuit court shall have the same cognizance of such cause and in like manner, as the said district court might have, or as said circuit [court] might have if the same had been originally and lawfully commenced therein; and shall proceed to hear and determine the same accordingly. (Rev. Stats. sec. 637; see secs. 587, 601.) § 94 (638). Courts always open for certain purposes.-The circuit courts, as courts of equity, shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing any pleading, of issuing and returning mesne and final process, and of making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders, rules, and other proceedings, preparatory to the hearing, upon their merits, of all causes pending therein. And any judge of a circuit court may, upon reasonable notice to the parties, make and direct and award, at chambers or in the clerk's office, and in vacation as well as in term, all such process, commissions, orders, rules, and other proceedings, whenever the same are not grantable, of course, according to the rules and practice of the court. Rev. Stats. sec. 638.) § 95 (630). In Bankruptcy.-The circuit courts shall have jurisdiction in matters in bankruptcy, to be exercised within the limits and in the manner provided by law. (Rev. Stats. sec. 630.) CHAPTER VIII. JURISDICTION OF REMOVAL OF CAUSE FROM STATE COURT. § 96. Jurisdiction as governed by the subject-matter of the action. § 97. Other suits. § 98. As relates to parties. § 99. Removal on ground of prejudice or local influence. § 100. Removal of cause for prejudice or local influence, Act of 1867. § 102. Remand of cause removed on ground of prejudice and local in fluence. § 103. Suits involving title under grants from different States. § 104. § 105. Removal of cause against persons denied any civil rights, etc § 106. Removal of suits and prosecutions against revenue officers and officers acting under registration laws. § 111. Time to file record-Misfeasance of clerk-Certiorari § 117. Division of opinion in civil causes-Decision by presiding judge. § 118. Division of opinion in criminal causes-Certificate. § 119. Division of opinion in civil causes-Certificate. § 96. Jurisdiction as governed by the subject-matter of the action. That any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, of which the circuit courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction FED. PROC.-26. by the preceding section, which may now be pending, or which may hereafter be brought in any State court, may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein to the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. (Act of March 3, 1875, 18 U. S. Stats. 470, as amended by the Act of March 3, 1887, 24 U. S. Stats. 552, as re-enacted by the Act of Aug. 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats. 433.) See Desty's REMOVAL, sec. 92. Suits removable.-Where the ground of removal is the subject-matter, and not citizenship, the suit must arise, in part at least, out of a controversy in regard to some provision in the Constitution or laws of Congress (Gold Washing etc. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199); in such cases it is removable, irrespective of citizenship. (Wilder v. Union Nat. Bk., 12 Chic. L. N. 75.) It is not enough that a plea to the jurisdiction of the State court has been or may be interposed, involving constitutional questions (State v. Bowen, 8 Rich. N. S. 382); so merely claiming title under an Act of Congress will not authorize a removal. (Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4; S. C., 3 Sawy. 553; Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawy. 178.) A suit between a land-owner and an incorporated company seeking to appropriate the land under the law of eminent domain may be removed (Patterson v. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465; S. C., 98 U. S. 403); or a bill in equity to reform an insurance policy (Charter Oak Co. v. Star Ins. Co., 6 Blatchf. 208); or a special statutory proceeding to confirm a land title (Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137; S. C., Hemp. 692); or an action by an attorney to recover fees and have the amount declared a lien upon property sold (Pettus v. Georgia R. Co., 3 Woods, 620); or suits by attachment (Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107; Sayles v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 212); or a controversy as to the validity of an attachment (Keith v. Levi, 2 Fed. Rep. 743; 1 McCrary, 343); or a proceeding by mandamus to compel a company to transfer certificates of stock;—may be removed. (Washington Imp. Co. v. Kans. Pacific R. Co., 5 Dill. 489.) But a claim against an estate, pending |