"Sec. 29. Whenever any party entitled to remove any suit mentioned in the last preceding section, except suits removable on the grounds of prejudice or local influence, may desire to remove such suit from a state court to the District Court of the United States, he may make and file a petition, duly verified, in such suit in such state court at the time, or any time before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court in which such suit is brought to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff, for the removal of such suit into the district court to be held in the district where such suit is pending, and shall make and file therewith a bond, with good and sufficient surety, for his or their entering in such district court, within thirty days from the date of filing said petition, a certified copy of the record in such suit, and for paying all costs that may be awarded by the said district court if said district court shall hold that such suit was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto, and also for their appearing and entering special bail in such suit if special bail was originally requisite therein. It shall then be the duty of the state court to accept said petition and bond and proceed no further in such suit.17 Written notice of said petition and bond for removal shall be given the adverse party or parties prior to filing the same. The said copy being entered within said thirty days as aforesaid in said district court of the United States, the parties so removing the said cause shall, within thirty days thereafter, plead, answer or demur to the declaration or complaint in said cause, and the cause shall then proceed in the same manner as if it had been originally commenced in the said district court." 17-See Madisonville Traction Company v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239. For form of petition and bond, see Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 463. As to necessity of order of federal court for removal, see Pennsylvania Company v. Bender, 148 U. S. 255. It will be seen that the steps to effect removal are as follows: 1. Notice to the adverse party. "Written notice of said petition and bond for removal shall be given the adverse party or parties prior to filing the same.” 2. The filing of a duly verified petition and bond for removal. These are to be filed in the state court at the time or at any time before the defendant is required to answer or plead in the state court to the plaintiff's declaration or complaint. Upon the filing of a proper petition and bond in the state court the cause is ipso facto removed to the district court. "It shall then be the duty of the state court to accept said petition and bond and proceed no further in such suit." An order granting removal should properly be entered, but is not essential. Defects in removal proceedings may be waived by the party against whom the right of removal is exercised, and if, notwithstanding such defects, such party appears in the federal court and the case is one proper for removal, the federal court will not of its own motion inquire into the regularity of the proceedings by which its jurisdiction was obtained. Removal proceedings are in the nature of process to bring the parties before the United States court, and this result is accomplished by the voluntary appearance of the defendant therein without insisting upon the compliance with the statutory requirements.18 Where the Ground for Removal Is Prejudice and Local Influence, the petition must be filed in the district court and not in the state court, and must be accompanied by affidavits proving the existence of the local prejudice, and perhaps affidavits without any formal petition may be sufficient. The petition or affidavit may be filed at any time before 18-Mackay v. Uinta Development Co., 229 U. S. 173. the trial of the cause. The statute does not require notice of the filing of the petition nor a bond, but both are usual in practice.19 In the Case of Conflicting Land Grants removal is by petition and bond, there being some special provisions peculiar to this case.20 § 95. Procedure after removal. Upon the entering in the district court within thirty days after filing of the petition and bond in the state court of the certified copy of the record in the state court in the suit, the party removing the cause shall, within thirty days thereafter, plead, answer or demur to the declaration or complaint in the cause, and the cause shall then proceed in the same manner as if it had been originally commenced in the district court. Provision is made by statute for compelling the clerk of the state court to furnish the required certified record.21 § 96. Remanding cause to state court. The statute provides that the district court shall remand to the state court causes which it deems have been improperly removed therefrom, and "whenever any cause shall be removed from any state court into any district court of the United States, and the district court shall decide that the cause was improperly removed, and order the same to be remanded to the state court from whence it came, such remand shall be immediately carried into execution, and no appeal or writ of error from the decision of the district court so remanding such cause shall be allowed." The statute provides also for remanding in case of separable controversies and upon failure to show prejudice or local influence, or where a cause has been improperly or collusively removed.22 19-Judicial Code, § 28; Montgomery's Manual Fed. Proc. § 295. 20-Judicial Code, § 30. 21-Judicial Code, §§ 29, 35, 36, 38, 39. 22-Judicial Code, §§ 28, 37. By the express terms of the statute an order of the federal court remanding a cause to the state court is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.23 But an order refusing to remand may be reviewed, though the federal court cannot ordinarily be compelled by mandamus from the Supreme Court to remand a cause over which it has no jurisdiction.24 § 97. Procedure in state court after removal. Where a cause has been removed from a state court to a district court, it is the duty of the state court to proceed no further therein. It is not the function of the state court to pass upon the question of removability, but this is to be determined by the district court, subject, where the district court holds that the cause was removable, to review by the Supreme Court. Ordinarily the state court should await the decision of the district court, having nothing further to do with the cause should the district court decide that it was properly removed, but proceeding to the trial of cause remanded by the district court. However, it has been held that the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction of a suit on a petition for removal until a case has been made which shows upon its face that the petitioner has a right to the transfer. The state court, if it deems that the petition shows no such case, may try the cause, subject to the right of the Supreme Court to review its action.25 This action of the state court will not, however, prevent removal to and trial in the district court. And should the state court proceed to try the cause notwithstanding removal, the defendant may defend in both courts, and both judgments may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The defendant 23-Powers v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 169 U. S. 92. 24-Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 365; Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70. 25-Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v in such case does not waive his right to removal by defending the suit in the state court.20 26-Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5; Powers v. C. & O. R. Co., 169 U. S. 92. The case of Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207, affords an interesting example. Mrs. McCabe sued the railroad company to recover damages for the death of her husband through the negligence of the defendant. The suit was brought in a circuit court of Kentucky. The defendant petitioned for a removal of the cause to the federal court and the petition was granted by the Kentucky circuit court. The plaintiff appealed from the order of removal to the court of appeals of Kentucky, which reversed the order and remanded the cause to the circuit court for trial. The trial was had and the jury was instructed to find for the defendant company. This judgment was reversed by the court of appeals, and a new trial was had which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff of $2,500. This judgment was sustained by the court of appeals, and to the judgment of the court of appeals a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the appeal had been taken to the court of appeals from the order of the circuit court granting the petition for removal the railroad company filed a transcript of the record in the federal court which took and retained jurisdiction notwithstanding the reversal of the order for removal, and having set the cause down for trial, decided in favor of the defendant and dismissed the suit. This judgment was filed in the state court but was ignored by it. The Supreme Court held that the state court erred in refusing to give effect to the judgment of the federal court and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. |