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 sec. 646 superseded.

See Desty's REMOVAL, Sec. 110.

Original process. The intention of this section is to clothe the circuit court with the powers of the State court iu administering remedies (Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305); and if an attachment prevail over an assignment under the State law, it will have the same effect in the circuit court (Clarke v. F. C. & M. Ins. Co., 21 Law Reporter, 394); and if an injunction has been granted, it remains in force until modified or dissolved by the circuit court. (Northwestern D. Co. v. Corse, 4 Biss. 514; McLeod v. Duncan, 5 McLean, 342; Peters v. Peters, 41 Ga. 242; see Hatch v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 105.) 'Original process" includes mesne process

66

issuing out of the State court; so an attachment, though issued after summons, is preserved. (Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107; but see New England Screw Co. v. Bliven, 3 Blatch. 240.) So a motion to dissolve an attachment may be made after removal to the circuit court. (Garden City Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 1 Dill. 305.) It is the intention of the law to authorize and require that the question of dissolving, continuing or perpetuating an injunction 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 in 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.) The statutes of 1833, 1863 and 1868 are statutes where the right of removal depends on the subject-matter of the suit (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., Blatchf. 362), and under all three acts the whole suit must be removed. (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362.) The jurisdiction of the circuit court under the Act of 1863 is not taken away by the Act of 1867 (Lamar v. Dana, 10 Blatchf. 34); but so much of this section as provides for the removal of a judgment where the cause was tried by a jury is in conflict 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 England 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 assignment 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 injunction 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 same. (City of Portland v. Oregon Railway Co., 7 Sawy. 112.) Upon removal an injunction will not be dissolved upon the ground that the bill filed was not verified according to law and practice of the courts of chancery. (Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. Rep. 455; 2 McCrary, 441.) An application to dissolve an injunction could not be considered before the return day, where it involved the case as an entirety, or where it would change the status of the parties. (New Orleans City R. Co. v. Crescent City R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 160.) Under the Act of 1866 an injunction issued by the State Court was ipso facto dissolved by the removal, as no mention is made of injunctions in said act. (McLeod v. Duncan, 5 McLean, 343; Hatch v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 105.)

113.

Dismissal, when.-That if, in any suit 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 a 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; Collins 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

power to review on appeal or in error an order of a circuit court remanding a cause to a State court (Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U. S. 56); and this is so, whether the suit was begun and the removal had before or after said act took effect. (Wilkinson v. Nebraska, 123 U. S. 286; Sherman v. Grinnell, 123 U. S. 679.)

Remanding cause- Want of jurisdiction.—The court will, without formal motion, take notice of a jurisdictional matter which is ground to remand the cause. (Beede v. Cheeney, 5 Fed. Rep. 388.) So if the petition and affidavit fail to bring the case within the statute, it is the duty of the circuit court to remand it. (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336.) If the case does not substantially involve a controversy within the jurisdiction of the court, it will be the duty of the court to remand it. (Stevens v. Richardson, 13 The Reporter, 678; Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135; Ryan v. Young, 20 Alb. L. J. 79; 8 The Reporter, 229.) Where the jurisdiction is not clear as to whether a party is a necessary or formal party, and there is no controversy wholly between citizens of different States which can be fully determined, the cause will be remanded. (Evans v. Faxon, 10 Fed. Rep. 312; 11 Biss. 175.) If the case is not one of Federal cognizance, it may be dismissed or remanded at any stage of the proceedings. (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421; Wood v. Matthews, 2 Blatchf. 370; Murray v. Patrie, 5 Blatchf. 343.) The Federal court cannot proceed unless it has jurisdiction, whatever the condition of the parties may be (McMurdy v. Conn. G. C. Ins. Co., 9 Chic. L. N. 324; Young v. Andes Ins. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 719), and it must determine for itself the question of jurisdiction. (Field v. Lownsdale, Deady, 288.) Where the jurisdictional facts are contested, the circuit court will not determine them on a motion to remand the cause. (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336; Hodson v. Milward, 3 Grant, 418.) The cause will be remanded where the proceeding is under a local statute, and could not be litigated in a United States court. (Lehigh Co. v. Central R. Co., 4 Week. Notes, 187.) The objection to the want of jurisdiction, appearing on the face of the record, must be taken by motion to