that the requirement of such service was made, except by the postmaster of the city of Boston, who had no authority, so far as we can discover, to require such service. When the claimant protested to the Postmaster General he was promptly relieved from the service, and another contract was made for the performance of the same.

It is said that this claim is in all respects like the one sustained by this court in United States v. Otis, 120 U. S. 115, where the contractor was allowed extra compensation for carrying the mails across the Hudson River from the Pennsylvania Railway depot at the foot of Cortlandt street, New York, to the depot of the same line in Jersey City, N. J., when the contract required him to carry the mails only to and from the depots in New York. In the opinion in that case Mr. Justice Blatchford pointed out that the United States directed the performance of the service. Presumably this was done by some one having authority of the United States. In this case the Court of Claims has held, as we think rightly, that the postmaster, having no power or authority to contract in respect to the mail messenger service, was not the agent of the Government for such service, and could not bind the Government by his knowledge or acts in respect thereto. Roberts v. United States, 92 U. S. 41, 48; Hume v. United States, 132 U. S. 406; Whitsell v. United States, 34 C. Cl. 5. As the additional service in this case was not required by the authorized agent of the Government, we think the contractor is not entitled to extra compensation therefor.

Finding no error in the proceedings of the Court of Claims, its decision is

Affirmed.

Syllabus.

196 U. S.

TRAVIS v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 84. Argued December 7, 8, 1904.-Decided January 9, 1905.

Slavens v. United States, p. 229, ante, followed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for appellant.

Mr. Special Attorney Joseph Stewart, with whom Mr. Assistant Attorney General Pradt was on the brief, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was argued with Slavens v. United States, No. 228, just decided. It involves the same question as to the right of the Postmaster General to terminate a mail contract. The Court of Claims dismissed the petition. 38 C. Cl. 590. For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Slavens case, the judgment of the Court of Claims is

Affirmed.

MADISONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY v. SAINT BERNARD MINING COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

No. 362. Submitted November 28, 1904. Decided January 16, 1905.

In regard to the removal of cases the following principles have been settled: If the case be a removable one, that is, if the suit, in its nature, be one of which the Circuit Court could rightfully take jurisdiction, then

upon the filing of a petition for removal, in due time, with a sufficient bond, the case is, in law, removed, and the state court in which it is pending will lose jurisdiction to proceed further, and all subsequent proceedings in that court will be void.

After the presentation of a sufficient petition and bond to the state court in a removable case, it is competent for the Circuit Court, by a proceeding ancillary in its nature without violating § 720, Rev. Stat., forbidding a court of the United States from enjoining proceedings in a state court-to restrain the party against whom a cause has been legally removed from taking further steps in the state court.

If upon the face of the record, including the petition for removal, a suit does not appear to be a removable one, then the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made.

Under the judiciary act of 1887, 1888, a suit cannot be removed from a state court unless it could originally have been brought in the Circuit Court of the United States.

A State cannot by any statutory provisions withdraw a suit in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States from the cognizance of the Federal courts.

A proceeding brought by a Kentucky railroad company in the County Court under 835-839, Kentucky Statutes, to condemn lands for a public use, valued at over $2,000, belonging to a corporation which is a citizen of another State, is a suit involving a controversy to which the judicial power of the United States extends within the meaning of the judiciary clauses of the Constitution and of which the Circuit Court has original cognizance under § 1 of the judiciary act of 1887 and may be removed to the Circuit Court of the United States.

In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it of controversies between citizens of different States, a Circuit Court of the United States is for every practical purpose a court of the State in which it sits and will enforce the rights of the parties according to the law of that State taking care, as a state court must, not to infringe any right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And in a case of condemnation it would proceed under the sanction of, and enforce, the state law so far as it was not unconstitutional.

It is fundamental in American jurisprudence that private property cannot be taken by the Government, National or state, except for purposes which are of a public character, although such taking be accompanied by compensation to the owner. It is for the State, primarily and exclusively, to declare for what local public purposes private property, within its limits, may be taken upon compensation to the owner, as well as to prescribe a mode in which it may be condemned and taken. But the State may not prescribe any mode of taking private property for a public purpose and of ascertaining the compensation to be made therefor, which would exclude from the

jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States a condemnation proceeding which in its essential features is a suit involving a controversy between citizens of different States.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. David W. Fairleigh and Mr. N. T. Crutchfield for appellant.

Mr. E. G. Sebree and Mr. C. Waddill for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

The Madisonville Traction Company, a Kentucky corporation, having by its charter authority to construct an electric railroad, filed its application in the County Court of Hopkins County, in that Commonwealth, to condemn for its use certain lands belonging to the Saint Bernard Mining Company, a Delaware corporation engaged in mining coal-the Traction Company being styled in the application as plaintiff and the Mining Company as defendant.

The application was made under the Kentucky Statutes relating to the condemnation of lands. The nature of those proceedings, whether judicial or not, appears from certain provisions of those statutes which may be summarized as follows:

Any company authorized to construct a railroad, if "unable to contract with the owner of any land or material necessary for its use for the purpose thereof," file in the office of the clerk of the County Court a description of such land or material, and have commissioners appointed to assess the damages which the owner is entitled to receive. Kentucky Stat. § 835.

The commissioners are required to make their award of damages in writing, giving the names of the owners, and whether non-residents of the State, infants, of unsound mind, or married women. Kentucky Stat. § 836.

It is made the duty of the clerk of the court, upon application VOL. CXCVI-16

of the company, to issue process against the owners to show cause why the report should not be confirmed, and make such orders as to non-residents and persons under disability as are required by the Civil Code of Practice in actions against them in the Circuit Court. Kentucky Stat. § 837.

At the first regular term, "after the owners shall have been summoned the length of time prescribed by the Civil Code of Practice before an answer is required," the court must examine the report and pass upon it. Kentucky Stat. § 838.

If exceptions are filed by either party, a jury must be empanelled to try the issue of fact, and judgment-rendered in conformity to the verdict, if sufficient cause to the contrary be not shown. Either party may appeal to the Circuit Court, the appeal to be tried de novo.

Upon the confirmation of the report of the commissioners or the assessment of damages by the court, as provided, and the payment to the owners of the amount due, as shown by the report of the commissioners when confirmed, or as shown by the judgment of the court when the damages are assessed by it, and all costs adjudged to the owner, the railroad company becomes entitled to take possession of the land and material, and to use the same for the purpose for which it was condemned as fully as if the title had been conveyed to it. But when an appeal is taken from the judgment of the County Court by the company it is not to be entitled to take possession of the land or material condemned until it pays into court the damages assessed and all costs. Kentucky Stat. § 839.

The commissioners appointed by the County Court, in the above proceeding, awarded $100 as damages to be paid to the Mining Company.

Process having issued, the Mining Company, before any action was taken upon the report, filed its petition and bond for the removal of the case into the Circuit Court of the United States, alleging, among other things, that the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeded $2,000. The petition for removal distinctly alleged, as the