5. Injunctions granted before removal. This section carefully saves to both parties the benefit of all proceedings taken in the action prior to its removal from the state court, and by section 4 of said act it is provided that, when any suit is removed from a state court to a circuit court of the United States, all injunction 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 has been removed. Fogg v. Fisk (C. C. 1884) 19 Fed. 235; Eureka & K. R. R. Co. v. California & N. Ry. Co. (C. C. 1900) 103 Fed. 897, affirmed (1901) 109 Fed. 509, 48 C. C. A. 517. In the cases provided for it is the intention to authorize and require that the question of dissolving, continuing, or perpetuating the injunction originally granted by the state court shall be dealt with by the courts of the United States into which the cause shall have been lawfully removed, and shall be disposed on its merits precisely as it ought to have been disposed of by the state tribunals if the cause had not been removed. Perry v. Sharpe (C. C. 1881) 8 Fed. 15, 24.

The federal court can maintain an injunction obtained in the state court. Smith v. Schwed (C. C. 1881) 6 Fed. 455, 2 McCrary, 441. Or, in a proper case, it may dissolve an ex parte preliminary injunction. Sharp v. Whiteside (C. C. 1883) 19 Fed. 156.

On filing in apt time a valid petition, the court's jurisdiction is determined, and defendant's remedy, as to an injunction granted in the cause, is by motion in the federal court to dissolve it. Harbison v. Allen (1910) 68 S. E. 207. 152 N. C. 720. This motion may be made at once. Champlain Const. Co. v. O'Brien (C. C. 1900) 104 Fed. 930.

The class of persons described in the bill having the right to come into the state, the injunction granted by the state court preventing their coming into the state will be dissolved on removal. State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. (C. C. 1899) 96 Fed. 353.

The hearing in a federal court, of a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction granted by a state court, from which the cause has been removed, should not be postponed on account of a motion to remand based upon a defect in the form or amount of the removal bond. Coburn v. Cedar Val. Land & Cattle Co. (C. C. 1885) 25 Fed. 791, affirmed (1891) 138 U. S. 196, 11 Sup. Ct. 258, 34 L. Ed. 876.

Where an injunction is granted and a receiver appointed by the state court without notice to the defendants, and no motion to dissolve the injunction and discharge the receiver is made and acted upon in the state court before the removal of the cause, such motion may be made and heard in the federal court,

upon due notice to the plaintiff, at any time after the record in the case is filed in that court. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust (C. C. 1883) 17 Fed. 275, 5 McCrary, 348.

Upon the removal of a cause from a state court, an injunction will not be dissolved upon the ground that the bill filed in such court was not verified according to law and the practice of courts of chancery. Smith v. Schwed (C. C. 1881) 6 Fed. 455, 2 McCrary, 441.

An injunction having been issued by a state court and perpetuated by the decree of the supreme court of the state, a similar injunction, granted as between the same parties, with regard to the same subject-matter, in a new suit, by a court of the same state and removed to this court, the matter will be treated by this court as a thing adjudged, and the injunction perpetuated. New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. New Orleans (C. C. 1878) 14 Fed. 373.

Before the removal of a cause an injunction was granted by the state court, on a full hearing, on notice, against defendants. After the removal, they moved, in the federal court, to dissolve the injunction, on the same papers on which it was granted. Held, that leave to make such motion must be applied for and obtained, before it could be made. Carrington v. Florida R. Co. (C. C. 1872) Fed. Cas. No. 2,448.

For decisions under prior law, see Bowen v. Kendall (C. C. 1860) Fed. Cas. No. 1,724; Liddle v. Thatcher (N. Y. 1856) 12 How. Prac. 294; Northwestern Distilling Co. v. Corse (C. C. 1869) Fed. Cas. No. 10,335.

6. Receivers appointed before removal.-A receiver appointed by a state court in a suit which was subsequently removed reported to the federal court stating the amount of the fund in his hands, and asking an order to pay therefrom certain lia' ilities. Held, that the circuit court had authority to require him to account for the fund. Hinckley v. Gilman, C. & S. R. Co. (1879) 100 U. S. 153, 25 L. Ed. 591. A motion to discharge a receiver, made on the same grounds on which it had been previously dismissed in the state court, will not be granted by the United States circuit court after removal to the latter court. Bryant v. Thompson (C. C. 1886) 27 Fed. 881, 882.

7. Prior waiver of jury trial.-Waiver of jury in state court does not affect the right to a jury after removal of cause to the federal court. Montgomery County v. Cochran (C. C. 1902) 116 Fed. 985.

8. Contempt committed before removal. The removal act does not empower a federal court to inquire into an alleged contempt of the state court committed before the case is removed.

Kirk v. Milwaukee Dust Collector Mfg. Co. (C. C. 1885) 26 Fed. 501.

9. Attachment by state court.-The want of any jurisdiction over the person of defendant in a case removed to a federal circuit court from a state court before service of summons, on a special appearance by defendant for that sole purpose, does not prevent the federal court from entering a judgment enforceable against the real property of defendant which had been attached before the case was removed, where the state court might, but for such removal, have rendered such a judgment on giving notice to defendant. Clark v. Wells (1906) 27 S. Ct. 43, 203 U. S. 164, 51 L. Ed. 138, modifying and affirming judgment Wells v. Clark (C. C. 1905) 136 Fed. 462.

Service by publication in the manner prescribed by the state statutes for nonresident defendants cannot be had in the federal Circuit Court to which a suit in which an attachment has issued has been removed from a state court before service of summons. Id.

When an action is removed from a state court into a federal court, the latter takes the case in the condition in which it stood at the time of removal, and a lien obtained by an attachment in the state court is not lost or terminated by the removal; but power to protect and enforce that lien after the removal exists in the federal court in like manner, as if it had been obtained by a proceeding in that court. Hatcher v. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. & Supply Co. (1904) 133 Fed. 267, 68 C. C. A. 19. Where an action begun by attachment was properly removed to the federal court pending a motion to dissolve the attachment, both the principal suit and the attachment proceeding were transferred into the federal Circuit Court, which, on the filing of the transcript and docketing the cause there, was as fully possessed of the case as if it had been begun in that court. Lebensberger v. Scofield (1905) 139 Fed. 380, 71 C. C. A. 476.

Where a suit was brought in a state court by attachment, and, pending a motion to dissolve the attachment, was removed to the federal court, the seizure of defendants' property was a sufficient basis on which the federal court was entitled to found its subsequent proceedings both in the principal suit and as to the attachment, though no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants had been acquired. Id.

Where a suit in a state court is removed by a defendant, no attachment of the property of the defendant by the state court can hold that property, after the removal, unless such attachment was the original process in the suit in the state court. New England Screw Co. v. Bliven (C. C. 1854) Fed. Cas. No. 10,156.

On the removal of a cause to a fed

eral court, an attachment will have the same effect as if the cause had remained in the state court. Clarke v. Chase (C. C. 1856) Fed. Cas. No. 2,845.

After the removal of a suit an attachment of property of the defendant made before the removal of the suit into said court, under a warrant of attachment issued by the state court after the commencement of the suit, will continue to hold the property to answer the final judgment of such court in the suit. Barney v. Globe Bank (C. C. 1862) Fed. Cas. No. 1,031.

A bill in chancery that had been filed in a state court to enjoin a judgment creditor from proceeding to enforce his judgment, and to set it aside, was removed to a federal court. Prior thereto the complainants had brought and prosecuted to judgment attachment suits against the judgment debtor. and the property attached had been sold by order of court and the proceeds remained in the hands of the sheriff. The bill prayed for the payment of their judgments out of this fund. Held, that the fund in the hands of the sheriff was no part of the subject-matter of the suit which had been removed, and that the court had no control over it. Smith v. Schwed (C. C. 1881) 9 Fed. 483.

Where a state attachment act provided that before appearance by the defendant all creditors who applied to be made parties to the suit should share pro rata in the fund, and that after such appearance all other creditors should be debarred from coming in upon the fund, held, that after the removal of the attachment suit to the federal court the latter had no power to strike off the defendant's appearance in order to let in the other creditors. Second Nat. Bank v. New York Silk Mfg. Co. (C. C. 1882) Fed. Cas. No. 12,601a.

Although, under Code Prac. La. arts. 732-753, giving the right to executory process, an order of seizure and sale, unless there is opposition, is a final order, where an issue is made up by the opposition, the order of seizure and sale, though first in point of time, becomes merely an incident in the cause, and when the cause is transferred to the circuit court the order comes as a part of it, and there the practice in equity governs. Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. Wagenspack (C. C. 1882) 12 Fed. 66.

Where the judgment of a federal court has been garnished, and the state court had made an order upholding the proceeding, the circuit court declined to review the propriety of this order. It seems, however, that the court whose judgment was thus garnished might properly disregard the writ. Loomis v. Carrington (C. C. 1883) 18 Fed. 97.

Where a sheriff holds property under an attachment issued by the state court in an action which was since removed to the federal court, and one of

the issues in such action is whether or not such property was legally attached, and what rights the plaintiff has therein, the court may order the marshal to take the property from the sheriff and hold it for the federal court. Friedman v. Israel (C. C. 1886) 26 Fed. 801.

An attachment granted by a state court in a suit in which service was made by publication cannot be vacated by the federal court on removal because the action is one in which such service is not provided for by the federal practice, but it must stand as it would in the state court, whatever effect the failure to obtain personal service may have on its efficacy. Blumberg v. A. B. & E. L. Shaw Co. (C. C. 1904) 131 Fed. 608. Where

an action by attachment against a nonresident pending in a state court having jurisdiction, in which property has been attached, and the plaintiff is proceeding in conformity to the state statute to obtain service, is removed by the defendant to the federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship, such removal confers upon the federal court jurisdiction of the defendant's person, and that court may proceed to render a personal judgment against him, to be satisfied from the proceeds of the attached property. The removal statute cannot be so construed as to permit a defendant to oust the rightful jurisdiction of a state court by a removal, and then obtain a dismissal of the action in the federal court for want of jurisdiction. Wells v. Clark (C. C. 1905) 136 Fed. 462, judgment modified and affirmed Clark v. Wells (1906) 27 Sup. Ct. 43, 203 U. S. 164, 51 L. Ed. 138.

The removal of an attachment suit from a state into a federal court under the judiciary act of 1789 does not ipso facto render the delivery bond filed in the former court inoperative, nor does it discharge the sureties therein. Ramsey v. Coolbaugh (1862) 13 Iowa, 164.

The statute undoubtedly preserves an attachment in force where the action is removed from a state court to the United States circuit court. Carpenter v. New York & N. H. R. Co. (N. Y. 1855) 11 How. Prac. 481.

The lien acquired by a foreign attachment against the goods of a defendant is maintained to answer the final judgment after a removal of the cause in the same manner as if the case had not been removed. Martin v. Thompson (S. C. 1825) 3 McCord, 167.

A bond given by a defendant arrested in attachment, as required by Code W. Va. c. 106, §§ 31, 32, to answer interrogatories filed, upon the issuance of a fieri facias, before a commissioner of the state court, or in default to satisfy the decree rendered, is not affected by a removal of the cause to the federal court, and when the federal court renders a decree, and interrogatories are filed with the commissioner of the state court, which the defendant fails to an

swer, he and his sureties on the bond are liable for the amount of the decree of the federal court. State v. Peck (1889) 32 W. Va. 606, 9 S. E. 919.

10. Process of state court.-Where preliminary proceedings were taken for the condemnation of land for a railroad right of way without notice to the nonresident owner thereof, and no notice was given to such owner until after the report of commissioners had been filed in the state court, whereupon such owner removed the proceedings to the federal courts, the suit not having been begun until process was first issued against such owner, it was entitled in the federal court to contest the complainant's right to take the land, as well as the amount of compensation to be paid therefor. Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co. (C. C. 1904) 130 Fed. 789.

A motion to vacate service of summons may properly be presented to the federal court after removal of the cause, where defendant has appeared only for the purpose of such removal, whether specially so limited or not; and such motion must be determined on facts appearing of record at the time of removal. Webster v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n (C. C. 1904) 165 Fed. 367.

Where, in a suit by attachment in a state court, after levy on property within the state, an order was made for service by publication on defendant as a nonresident, in strict accordance with the requirements of the state statute, such service is sufficient to give a federal court, to which the cause is removed, jurisdiction to render judgment enforceable against the attached property, although no proof was required by the state statute, or made, that defendant owns property in the state. Mercantile Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Barron (C. C. 1908) 165 Fed. 831.

Where a foreign corporation is doing some substantial business in a state, and a suit commenced in a state court by service of process valid under the state statute is removed into a federal court, such court will not set aside the service. Sleicher v. Pullman Co. (C. C. 1909) 170 Fed. 365.

A foreign railroad corporation, which maintains offices in New York and there employs freight and passenger agents to solicit business, which also holds directors' meetings, disburses dividends, and keeps an office for the transfer of its stock there, with an assistant secretary, is doing some substantial business in the state, and is subject to service of process under the New York statute, and such service will not be set aside by a federal court, in a suit brought in a state court, after its removal. Id.

11. Proceedings pending in state court at time of removal.-The exam

ination of a party to a suit as a witness for the adverse party, pending in a state court under a provision of the Code of Procedure for that state, may be continued after the removal of such suit to the federal court, though such an examination would not be allowed under the practice of the federal court, had the action been originally brought there. Fogg v. Fisk (C. C. 1884) 19 Fed. 235; Fogg v. Fisk (N. Y. 1884) 66 How. Prac. 343.

Where, before the removal of a cause from the state to the federal court, a reference is made to take the deposition of a witness according to the state practice, to be used on a motion in the suit, the plaintiff may proceed with such reference after the removal of the cause. Bills v. New Orleans, St. L. & C. R. Co. (C. C. 1876) Fed. Cas. No. 1,409.

Where an order made in contempt proceedings instituted in a state court, before the removal, has been appealed from to the state supreme court, the federal court will hold in abeyance proceedings for the enforcement of such order until the appeal is disposed of. Williams Mower & Reaper Co. v. Raynor (C. C. 1876) Fed. Cas. No. 17,748.

When a plea to the jurisdiction and a demurrer thereto had been filed in the state court, and the case then removed to the federal court before the state court had passed upon the plea, held, that even though the plea was sufficient to defeat the action in the state court, still, as it set out such facts as were requisite to give the federal court jurisdiction, that court acquired jurisdiction by the removal, and was bound to treat the plea as if the suit had been originally begun there. Kelly v. Virginia Protection Ins. Co. (C. C. 1878) Fed. Cas. No. 7,677.

Where a cause has been removed from a state to a federal court, pending an application to punish one of the parties for contempt by disobeying an order of the state court, the federal court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine such application. Kirk v. Milwaukee Dust-Collector Mfg. Co. (C. C. 1885) 26 Fed. 501.

A petition for removal, filed in the state court on the earliest day possible, is an abandonment of a prior appeal from an interlocutory order which cannot be superseded, where the appeal does not appear to have been perfected. Freeman v. Butler (C. C. 1889) 39 Fed. 1.

A federal court, into which a cause has been removed by one of two or more defendants on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and that there was a separable controversy, has no jurisdiction to set aside a judgment rendered by the state court therein as against another defendant, who is a citizen of the same state as plaintiff.

Youtsey v. Hoffman (C. C. 1901) 108 Fed. 699.

A defendant in a state court in Connecticut, who, after filing notices of his intention to suffer a default and to refuse to plead over and to move for a hearing in damages to the court, in accordance with the state practice, removes the cause into the federal court, is not required to file such notices a second time in that court, the cause standing after removal in the same condition as it did before in the state court. Johnson v. Bridgeport Deoxidized Bronze & Metal Co. (C. C. 1903) 125 Fed. 631.

12.

Pending motions.-After the removal of a cause, the federal court has authority to hear and act on a motion pending in the state court at the time of removal to modify or vacate a restraining order or preliminary injunction previously granted. Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co. (C. C. 1910) 183 Fed. 133. And, since the case stands as though it had been originally commenced in the federal circuit court, a motion for an injunction on the face of the bill may be heard in such court. McLeod v. Duncan (C. C. 1852) Fed. Cas. No. 8,898.

By removing a cause to the circuit court of the United States, a motion to quash the service made previously in the state court is not waived. Kauffman v. Kennedy (C. C. 1885) 25 Fed. 785. But, where, before a petition and bond for removal were passed on a motion was made by defendant, which was brought on for hearing in the federal court, by seeking an adjournment of the hearing in the latter court without objecting to the irregularity of the hearing, plaintiff waived such irregularity. Kinne v. Lant (C. C. 1895) 68 Fed. 436.

A motion to set aside the service of process after removal, filed in the state court before removal, and not acted on, is properly before the federal court for decision after removal. Tortat v. Hardin Min. & Mfg. Co. (C. C. 1901) 111 Fed. 426.

A plea in abatement on ground of insufficient service, filed in the state court in accordance with the state practice, may be permitted to stand as a motion to quash in the federal court. Peterson v. Morris (C. C. 1899) 98 Fed. 48.

Where, at the time a petition for the removal of a cause was filed, a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain was pending and undetermined in the state court, such motion was transferred to the federal court with the record to be there determined. Bryce v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. 1904) 129 Fed. 966.

Though no bond for costs is required in case of suit originally brought in the United States court, yet when a cause is removed from the state court to the