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. Mathews, 2 Blatchf. 370; Murray v. Patrie, 5 Blatchf. 343.) The Federal court cannot proceed unless it has jurisdicion, whatever the condition of the parties may be (McIurdy v. Conn. G. C. Ins. Co., 9 Chic. L. N. 324; Young . Andes Ins. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 719), and it must deteraine for itself the question of jurisdiction. (Field v. ownsdale, Deady, 288.) Where the jurisdictional facts re contested, the circuit court will not determine them on motion to remand the cause. (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 latchf. 336; Hodson v. Milward, 3 Grant, 418.) The use will be remanded where the proceeding is under a cal statute, and could not be litigated in a United States urt. (Lehigh Co. v. Central R. Co., 4 Week. Notes, 7.) The objection to the want of jurisdiction, appearg on the face of the record, must be taken by motion to

remand. (Hoyt v. Wright, 4 Fed. Rep. 168; 2 McCrary, 222.) The record, including the petition, must show jurisdiction in the circuit court, and any omission (Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawy. 178; Gold W. & W. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199) not afterward supplied is cause for a remand; but if the proceedings are so amended as to remove all objections, the cause will not be remanded. (Edgerton v. Gilpin, 3 Woods, 277.) That a suit may be removed to, although it could not be originally brought in, the Federal court, is not affected by the provisions for the dismissal or remanding of suits not really and substantially involving a dispute or controversy within the jurisdiction of the cir cuit courts. (Warner v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 231.) The cause cannot be remanded on the ground that it is not susceptible of decision after complainant files a new bill in the circuit court. (Carrington v. Florida R. Co., 9 Blatchf. 467; see Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187; Collins v. Wellington, 31 Fed. Rep. 244; Rumsey v. Call, 28 Fed. Rep. 769; Carson 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. Casper, 31 Fed. Rep. 499.)

Motion to remand.-A motion to remand will not be entertained, unless from unavoidable necessity, to ascertain the appropriate tribunal to hear and determine the case (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336); and the question of the right to remove cannot be raised on motion before trial, but at the trial it may. (Dennistoun v. Draper, 5 Blatchf. 336.) A plaintiff may move to dismiss, although two terms have elapsed since the filing of the transcript, if he has not appeared and pleaded. (Price v. Sommers, 8 Chic. L. N. 290.) The party who alleges that the removal has been improperly made must make such fact clearly appear (Hodson v. Milward, 3 Grant, 418); and the admission by an attorney of service of a rule to plead is an admission of the regularity of the proceeding. (Abranches v. Schell, 4 Blatchf. 256.) If a case has been

improperly removed, the circuit court may remand it (Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421; Urtetique v. D'Arcy, 9 Peters, 692; Ins. Co. v. Francis, 11 Wall. 210; Field v. Lownsdale, Deady, 288; Galvin v. Boutwell, 9 Blatchf. 470; State v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 345); although the party seeking a removal has filed a cross-bill in the circuit court against parties who are all citizens of a different State. (Donohoe v. Mariposa L. & M. Co., 5 Sawy. 63.) So, also, if an order for removal was improperly made. (Field v. Lownsdale, Deady, 288.) That the proceedings sought to be removed are a mere mode of execution and relief inseparably connected with the original judgment will be grounds for remand (Buford v. Strother, 10 Fed. Rep. 406; 3 McCrary, 253; Boyd v. Bradish, 10 Fed. Rep. 406; 3 McCrary, 253); but otherwise if they constitute an independent controversy, with new parties and new liabilities. (Buford v. Strother, 10 Fed. Rep. 406; 3 McCrary, 253.) When a cause is once removed, and there are no jurisdictional objections to its remaining, it will not be remanded for defects or irregu larities that can be remedied, or which have not worked any prejudice to the opposite party. (Dennis v. Alachua Co., 3 Woods, 683.) Where the cause is one of Federal cognizance, the right to have it remanded because of defects in the mode of removal may be waived (Price v. Sommers, 8 Chic. L. N. 290); but there is no waiver of the right where the cause is not really and substantially one of Federal jurisdiction. (Price v. Sommers, 8 Chic. L. N. 290.) This section did not intend that the suit -hould be dismissed or remanded on account of irregulariies provided it satisfactorily appears that the circuit court as jurisdiction. (Osgood v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 2 Cent. 1. J. 275, 283; 7 Chic. L. N. 241; see Parker v. Overman, 8 How. 141.) If the citizenship of the petitioner is in ispute, the question will not be decided on motion to reand. (Heath v. Austin, 12 Blatchf. 320.) Where there no allegation as to the citizenship of the plaintiff, the use will be remanded (Abercrombie v. Dupins, 1 Cranch, 43; Wood v. Wagnan, 2 Cranch, 9; Sherman v. Windr Manuf. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 852; 19 Blatchf. 314); or here citizenship is alleged in the present tense (Beede v. neeney, 5 Fed. Rep. 3SS); and the objection will not be

DESTY REMOVALS.-83.

entertained if the information concerning his interest is vague or undefined, or there is delay in making the objection. (Hervey v. Illinois M. R. Co., 12 Chic. L. N. 407.) Where a suit is removed on account of alienage, it will not be remanded for the reason that the alien subsequently became a citizen. (Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273. If the citizenship of petitioner is not seriously contested, the case may be remanded on motion. (Galvin v. Boutwell, Blatchf. 470.) Where a minor was a party, it was held that he was incapable of consenting to the removal, and the cause was remanded. (Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 3 Biss. 60.) The motion to remand admits the facts set out in the petition (Buttner v. Miller, 1 Woods, 620), and the truth of the averments made in the petition cannot then be inquired into. (Texas v. Texas & Pac. R. Co., 3 Woods, 308.) If the petition and the record state, as grounds of removal, facts which are not true as to citizenship, or value where value does not appear in the pleadings, issue may be taken thereon by plea of abatement in the circuit court. (Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Heath v. Austin, 12 Blatchf. 320.) On the determination of a State court that the petition is sufficient, it will be the duty of the Federal court to remand the cause. (Urtetique v. D'Arcy, 9 Peters, 692.) Where the prayer of the petition did not ask for a removal of the entire suit under the act of 1875, the cause will be remanded. (Clark v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 355; 3 McCrary, 591; Sweet v. Same, 11 Fed. Rep. 355; 3 McCrary, 591.)

For failure to file record.-Failure to file a record on or before the first day of the next term of the Federal court does not deprive it of jurisdiction (McLean v. Chicago, St. Paul etc. R. Co., 16 Blatchf. 309; Jackson v. Mutual Ins. Co., 3 Woods, 413; Hyde v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 2 Dill. 525; Clippenger v. Missouri Valley L. Ins. Co., 8 Chic. L. N. 115; see Kidder v. Featteau, 2 Fed. Rep. 616; 1 McCrary, 323); but if not filed in time, and the Federal court cannot cure the defect, the cause will be remanded. (Cobb v. Globe etc. Ins. Co., 3 Hughes, 452; Bright v. Milwaukee R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 366; Broadnax v. Eisner, 13 Blatchf. 366; McLean v. St. P. & C. R. Co.,

20 Alb. L. J. 78; Wilcox v. Follett, 10 Chic. L. N. 99.) In opposing a motion for remanding a cause, the affidavit by defendant's attorney that a failure to file the record was through inadvertence must state the facts, from which the court may see that it was though inadvertence or accident. (McLean v. Chicago & St. P. R. Co., 16 Blatchf. 309.) Where the case is improvidently placed on the docket of the circuit court, with or without its order, objection may be made at any time (Gate v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 344; McMurdy v. Conn. G. L. Ins. Co., 9 Chic. L. N. 324); or if the record shows on its face that the case is not one which may be removed under the statutes. (Easton v. Rucker, 1 Marsh. J. J. 232; see Bromwell v. Gordon, 1 McAll. 207.) If a defect or omission in the record can be cured by certiorari, such defect is no ground for remanding the cause. (Dennis v. Alachua Co., 3 Woods, 683; Cook v. Whitney, 3 Woods, 715.) In case of non-appearance, the circuit court may remand. (Ward v. Arredondo, 1 Paine, 410.)

Sufficiency of bond. -A Federal court will not, on motion to remand, enter into inquiry as to the sufficiency of the sureties on the bond (Van Allen v. Atchison, C. & P. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 545; 1 McCrary, 598), and the cause will not be remanded on this ground (Dennis v. Alachua Co., 3 Woods, 683); nor because it is irregular or objectionable in form. (Hervey v. Illinois M. R. Co., 12 Chic. L. N. 407.) A Federal court will not on motion enter on the inquiry as to the sufficiency of the sureties on a bond approved by the State court. (Van Allen v. Atchison, C. & P. R. Co., 3 Fed Rep. 545.) If the conditions in the bond omit to provide for the payment of costs, the cause will be remanded. (Torrey v. Grant Loco. Wks., 14 Blatchf. 269; McMurdy v. Conn. G. L. Ins. Co., 9 Chic. L. N. 324; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. C. P. & S. R. Co., 12 Chic. L. N. 65; contra, Baker v. Peteron, 4 Dill. 562; Dennis v. Alachua Co., 3 Woods, 683.)

Application too late. The mere failure to move to emand at the same term at which the record is filed will ot preclude making the objection at the next_term Kauffman v. McNutt, 3 Cent. L. J. 408; Kain v. Texas ac. R. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 12; Carrington v. Florida R.