removal, but that can only be done by the federal court on motion to remand after removal, and so, where a petition alleges fraud in wrongfully joining two parties as defendants solely to defeat removal, the state court cannot inquire into and determine for itself the issue thus presented. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Adams, (1908) 87 Ark. 136, 112 S. W. 186.

Where, on an application by a noncitizen to remove a cause to the federal court, the removal petition charges that a citizen defendant was fraudulently joined merely to prevent removal, such issue is triable only in the federal court after removal. Eastin v. Texas, etc., R. Co., (1906) 99 Tex. 654, 92 S. W. 838, reversing (1905) 89 S. W. 440.

Where an action could not have been originally brought in the federal Circuit Court, the Removal Acts do not require the determination of a question of alleged fraudulent joinder of parties by the federal court after the filing of a removal petition and bond. Ward v. Pullman Car Corp., (1908) 131 Ky. 142, 114 S. W. 754.

Denial of application. Where a state court orders a removal on an insufficient petition, the party aggrieved may prosecute an appeal to the appellate court of the state to have the order reviewed. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jones, (1904) 118 Ky. 158, 80 S. W. 484.

Where an order of the state trial court removing a cause to the federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship is not reviewable by the state Supreme Court by appeal or writ of error, it may be reviewed on certiorari; the error, if any, appearing on the face of the record. State v. Mosman, (Mo. 1910) 133 S. W. 38.

But the dismissal by a state court of a petition for removal of a cause to a federal court cannot be reviewed on appeal where there is no bill of exceptions. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Satterwhite, (1904) 112 Tenn. 185, 79 S. W. 106. See also Stratton's Independence v. Sterrett, (Colo. 1911) 117 Pac. 351; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Fort, (1904) 112 Tenn. 432, 80 S. W. 429.

In Pierce v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (1905) 86 S. W. 703, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 801, it appears that a nonresident defendant, joined with residents in an action which, on the face of the petition, is not removable to the federal court, petitioned for its removal, but stated no ground in the petition for such removal. The court, in its orders, did not pass upon the petition for removal, but merely approved and accepted the bond, and permitted the plaintiff's answer to the petition for removal to be filed. Defendant evidently assumed that the case was ipso facto removed to the federal court, without any order by the state court, and plaintiff also concluded that that forum must pass upon the propriety of the removal. It was held that there was no order of the state court removing the cause to the federal court, from which plaintiff could or should have appealed in order to preserve his rights to a trial in the state court.

Setting aside order denying application.· Where a petition for removal of a cause is

denied, and it thereafter becomes apparent to the court at any time that the resident defendant has been joined without reasonable grounds therefor, it is the court's duty in its discretion to set aside the former order and direct a removal of the cause. Ward r. Pullman Car Corp., (1908) 131 Ky. 142, 114 S. W. 754.

A state court declining to order a removal of the case to the federal court on the filing of a petition for removal may do so at the close of plaintiff's evidence or at the close of all the evidence. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Banks, (1911) 144 Ky. 137, 137 S. W. 1066.

Since no order for removal is necessary, where removal of a cause to a federal court is proper an order of removal by the judge of the state court confers no jurisdiction on the federal court. Hubbard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1910) 176 Fed. 994.

Where a petition and bond for the removal of a cause from a state court to a federal court are sufficient under the federal statute, the cause is removed without an order of the state court. State v. Johnston, (1911) 234 Mo. 338, 137 S. W. 595.

On the filing of a removal petition, it becomes a part of the record, and if, on the face of the record as so constituted, the suit appears to be a removable one, the state court is bound to surrender jurisdiction. Donovan v. Wells, (C. C. A. 1909) 169 Fed. 363.

Where a petition and bond for the removal of a cause to the federal court is duly filed, and on the record made defendant is entitled to removal, its right is preserved, not only for review in the state court, but also in the Supreme Court of the United States. Shohoney. Quincy, etc., R. Co., (1909) 223 Mo. 649, 122 S. W. 1025.

In a suit for petition in a court of North Carolina, in which, under the laws of the state, the clerk is authorized to make all necessary orders and to enter judgment, such clerk has authority to make an order for the removal of the cause on a petition filed before answer. Sanderlin v. People's Bank, (1905) 140 Fed. 191.

IV. EFFECT OF PETITION AS GENERAL OR SPECIAL APPEARANCE.

An appearance in the state court for the sole purpose of exercising a right to remove the case to the federal court should be regarded as a special appearance for such purpose, though containing no express limitation, and will not therefore constitute a waiver of an objection to the jurisdiction on the ground that the summons was not properly served. Murphy v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., (1911) 184 Fed. 495.

Challenge to the jurisdiction.—The removal of a cause does not preclude the defendant from challenging the jurisdiction of either the state or federal court over his person, or from claiming exemption from being sued in a state other than that of his residence. Davis v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., (1906) 146 Fed. 403.

A motion to vacate the service of the 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 the facts appearing of record at the time of removal, which cannot be supplemented by evidence taken after removal. Webster v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc., (1904) 165 Fed. 367.

The validity of the service of process upon a foreign corporate defendant is open in a federal Circuit Court after the cause has been removed to that court from a state court on the petition of such defendant. Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, (1910) 215 U. S. 437, 30 S. Ct. 125, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 272.

The return of the sheriff of the state court is not conclusive upon the question of the validity of service of process, where the cause has been removed to a federal Circuit Court by a defendant who raises by plea to the jurisdiction the objection that it was a foreign corporation not doing business within the state, and that the person served with process was not its agent at that time. Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, (1910) 215 U. S. 437, 30 S. Ct. 125, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 272. See also Murphy v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., (1911) 184 Fed. 495.

V. STATE COURT TO PROCEED NO FURTHER. The filing of a sufficient petition and bond for removal, in a cause which is removable, ipso facto divests the state court of jurisdiction to proceed further therein except to pass on the sufficiency of the papers, and any further action it may take is coram non judice and void. While a formal order of removal is usual, it is not necessary, nor will the failure of the state court to take any action on the petition prevent the attaching of the jurisdiction of the federal court. Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, (1905) 135 Fed. 650, 68 C. C. A. 288, reversing (1904) 128 Fed. 608; Mays . Newlin, (1906) 143 Fed. 574; Phillips v. Western Terra Cotta Co., (1909) 174 Fed. 873; Flint v. Coffin, (C. C. A. 1910) 176 Fed. 872; Mannington r. Hocking Valley R. Co., (1910) 183 Fed. 133; Hunter r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (C. C. A. 1911) 188 Fed. 645; Texarkana Telephone Co. v. Bridges, (1905) 75 Ark. 116, 86 S. W. 841; Stratton's Independence r. Sterrett, (Colo. 1911) 117 Pac. 351; Southern R. Co. v. Dukes, (1910) 7 Ga. App. 784, 68 S. E. 332; Pennsylvania Co. v. Leeman, (1903) 160 Ind. 16, 66 N. E. 48; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stone, (1905) 70 Kan. 708, 79 Pac. 655; Ward v. Pullman Car Corp., (1908) 131 Ky. 142, 114 S. W. 754; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Banks, (1911) 144 Ky. 137, 137 S. W. 1066; Chastain v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (1910) 226 Mo. 94, 125 S. W. 1099; Chastain v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (1911) 152 Mo. App. 478, 133 S. W. 853; State v. Mosman, (Mo. 1910) 133 S. W. 38; Higson v. North River Ins. Co., (1910) 153 N. C. 35, 68 S. E. 920; Eastin v. Texas, etc., R. Co., (1906) 99 Tex. 654, 92 S. W. 838; Bilby v. Hancock, (Tex. 1910) 125 S. W. 370.

Where a cause is removed to the federal court, no part of the subject-matter thereof remains in the state court. Holbrook r. Quinlan, (Vt. 1911) 80 Atl. 339.

During the pendency in a United States Circuit Court, in a cause removed thereto from a state court, of a controversy over the question whether a sufficient ground for such removal exists, the state court is without jurisdiction to proceed or to make any judg ment or order in the suit. Tomson v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assoc., (1907) 78 Neb. 400, 110 N. W. 997.

Since the presentation to the state court of the petition for removal of a cause, accompanied by the required bond praying for removal, is effective to deprive the state court of jurisdiction eo instante, if the petition on its face shows facts essential to entitle plaintiff to remove, the filing of an answer in the state court after the presentation of the petition to remove is ineffective to raise an issue as to the facts relied on for removal, since all pleading attacking the facts so alleged and the federal court's jurisdiction must be filed in and heard by the federal court to which the cause is removed. Phillips r. Western Terra Cotta Co., (1909) 174 Fed. 873.

If the determination of the state court as to its right to retain jurisdiction after petition is filed for removal to the federal court is erroneous, all subsequent proceedings therein including the judgment are void, but otherwise the proceedings are valid. Golden r. Northern Pac. R. Co., (1909) 39 Mont. 435, 104 Pac. 549.

An appointment of a receiver by a state court will be vacated by the federal Circuit Court as without jurisdiction where proper proceedings had been taken to remove the cause. Fayette Title, etc., Co. v. Maryland, etc., Telephone, etc., Co., (1910) 180 Fed. 928.

Where, in an action against a railroad company and its receivers, appointed in a federal court, to compel the defendants to remove obstructions from a street, defendants filed a cross-bill claiming title to the part of the street in question, and removed the case to the federal court, which denied a motion to remand, and assumed jurisdiction, it was held that no proceedings could be taken in such action in the state court while it was pending and undetermined in the federal court. Ashland . Whitcomb, (1904) 120 Wis. 549, 98 N. W. 531.

But see Oishei r. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1905) 101 App. Div. 473, 91 N. Y. S. 1034, wherein it was held that where, after settlement of an action for injuries, the defendant removed the cause to the federal courts, it was held that such removal did not deprive the state court of jurisdiction to enforce the lien of plaintiff's attorney on the proceeds of the settlement.

And where an action was brought in a state court, and defendant petitioned for moval to a federal court, which was denied, judgment for plaintiff was reversed on appeal, on the ground that the lower court erred in denying the removal, and the cause was remanded with direction to proceed in a man

ner not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. It was held that the state court had jurisdiction to render judgment for costs which accrued in that court, though the petition for removal filed before the accrual of costs, or the major part of them, should have been sustained. Wisecarver v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1909) 145 Ia. 281, 122 N. W. 909.

Apparent defects. Where a defect indicating want of jurisdiction in a federal court appears on the face of a petition for removal, the state courts are not ousted of their jurisdiction; not being bound to surrender jurisdiction until a case has been made which on its face shows that petitioner has a right to transfer the cause to the federal court. North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Southern R. Co., (1909) 151 N. C. 447, 66 S. E. 427.

Where an ex parte order was made for the removal from the state Supreme Court to the federal Circuit Court of an action on judgments, but the order was void because of the failure of the petition for removal to show the citizenship of plaintiff's assignors, and no stay of proceedings having been obtained, it was held that the state Supreme Court did not lose jurisdiction of the case, and properly entered judgment against defendant on default in serving an answer. Tierney . Helvetia Swiss F. Ins. Co., (1908) 126 App. Div. 446, 110 N. Y. S. 613.

Dismissal of cause to prevent removal. Where proper application is made by a nonresident defendant for the removal of a case from the state court to the United States court, which application is refused by the state court, whose judgment is reversed on writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state, plaintiff cannot dismiss the case, so as to defeat its removal to the United States court, by an entry of dismissal before the remittitur from the Supreme Court has been formally made the judgment of the lower court. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Newman, (1909) 132 Ga. 523, 64 S. E. 541.

Withdrawal of petition. Where a motion for the removal of a cause on a petition and bond on file was overruled by the state court, on the ground that the cause was still at rules and not on the court docket, and defendant acquiesced in such decision by taking no further action for removal until the next term and then again presenting the motion, it was held that such action had the effect of a temporary withdrawal of the motion, and the state court retained jurisdiction until it was again presented. Mays v. Newlin, (1906) 143 Fed. 574.

On the filing of the requisite petition and bond for removal to a federal court, the state court loses jurisdiction; but where a party procures a withdrawal of the petition and bond by the party filing it, and dismisses his action in the state court as to such party, and by agreement with the remaining parties prosecutes his suit in a state court, he cannot, after judgment against him, assert that the jurisdiction of the state court had not been restored. Anderson v. United Realty Co., (1908) 79 Ohio St. 23, 86 N. E. 644.

Right to begin new action on dismissal in Circuit Court. After the transfer of an action to the federal court, the plaintiff has the right to dismiss it in that court and renew the action in the state court; and it is not material that an action was not dismissed in the federal court until after the second one was instituted in the state court, it being sufficient that the dismissal occurred before the trial of the second action. Dana . Blackburn, (1906) 121 Ky. 706, 90 S. W. 237. See also Southern R. Co. v. Rowe, (1907) 2 Ga. App. 557, 59 S. E. 462; Nipp v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., (1904) 80 S. W. 796, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2335; Holbrook v. Quinlan, (Vt. 1911) 80 Atl. 339.

Where an action is removed to a federal court and is there dismissed without trial or determination of the merits, plaintiff's right to sue is not affected, and he may institute a new suit on the same cause of action in the state court, as though the prior suit had not been brought. McPherson v. Swift, (S. D. 1911) 130 N. W. 768.

Where a suit against a foreign and domestic corporation was removed to the federal court on the ground of the amount in controversy, and because the domestic corporation had been fraudulently joined as a party, it was held that the plaintiff had the right to dismiss the case in the federal court, and subsequently institute a suit in the state courts against the foreign corporation, alone, laying damages in a sum less than $2,000. Pacific Express Co. v. Needham, (1904) 37 Tex. Civ. App. 129, 83 S. W. 22.

Dismissal without prejudice in federal court. Where, after the removal of a suit, the plaintiff procures an order dismissing the same without prejudice, the jurisdiction of the federal court ends; and the fact of the removal does not affect the jurisdiction of the state court to entertain a new suit on the same cause of action. Texas Cotton Products Co. v. Starnes, (1905) 133 Fed. 1022, 66 C. C. A. 673, affirming (1904) 128 Fed. 183; Stevenson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (1904) 117 Ky. 855, 79 S. W. 767; DeWitt v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., (1904) 79 S. W. 275, 25 Ky. L.. Rep. 2019.

Where a suit in a state court has been removed by defendant to the United States court having concurrent jurisdiction, and has on application of plaintiff been dismissed without prejudice, there is no merger of the cause of action, and a new suit may be brought thereon at any time in any court of competent jurisdiction as though no previous suit had been brought. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Larwill, (1910) 83 Ohio St. 108, 93 N. E. 619.

Taking nonsuit in federal court. a cause is removed to the federal court, notwithstanding the refusal of the state court to grant the application for removal, and the party resisting the removal appears in the federal court and submits himself to its jurisdiction, asking that the cause be remanded, and failing in which he appears in the federal court and takes a nonsuit, and consents that a judgment be entered against him, he

cannot thereafter prosecute the same suit in the state court, but must commence a new suit in the state court. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Huber, (Tex. 1906) 95 S. W. 568.

Proceedings after remand. The state court, after remand of a cause removed to a federal court, cannot question the correctness of the order of remand, but must proceed to exercise jurisdiction. Feeney r. Wabash R. Co., (1907) 123 Mo. App. 420, 99 S. W. 477.

Where a cause removed to a federal court is by the latter remanded, the order of remand cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court of the state. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neal, (1906) 83 Ark. 591, 98 S. W. 958.

Where a case had, on defendant's petition, been transferred to a federal court, and remanded by it to the state court, the acceptance of jurisdiction by the latter does not deprive the defendant of any of its constitutional rights. Walker . Wabash R. Co., (1906) 193 Mo. 453, 92 S. W. 83.

Where a case is removed to the federal court and thereafter on motion is remanded to the state court and the clerk enters default on failure of defendant to appear or answer, the court has jurisdiction to hear proofs submitted by plaintiff and make findings and enter judgment thereon. Morbeck v. Bradford-Kennedy Co., (1910) 19 Idaho 83, 113 Pac. 89.

Second application for removal. An order remanding a cause to the state court whence it was removed does not control the right to make a second application for removal if it results from the subsequent pleadings or the conduct of the parties that the cause becomes a removable one. Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank, (1909) 212 U. S. 364, 29 S. Ct. 366, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 551, affirming (1907) 75 Kan. 479, 89 Pac. 915.

VI. CIRCUIT COURT TO PROCEED.

Acquisition of federal jurisdiction. — Where the petition for removal of a case to the federal court, and the files in the case constituting the record up to the time of filing the petition, show upon their face that the federal statute has been complied with, and that the case is one that should be removed, the jurisdiction is at once transferred to the federal court. Morbeck . Bradford-Kennedy Co., (1910) 19 Idaho 83, 113 Pac. 89.

When this section has been fully complied with, the federal court acquires jurisdiction without an order of the state court transferring the cause. Mutual L. Ins. Co. t. Langley, (1906) 145 Fed. 415.

It is not the order of a state court removing a cause that gives a federal court jurisdiction, but it is the application for removal in the form prescribed; and if the petition for removal, read in the light of the pleadings in the case, shows a removable cause, and the bond tendered is sufficient, the cause is removed without reference to the action of the state court. Shohoney v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., (1909) 223 Mo. 649, 122 S. W. 1025.

Conclusiveness of petition. The cases removed from a state court, in which the petition filed by plaintiff in the state court is conclusive in the federal court on the question of its jurisdiction, are cases in which the question depends on the legal construction of plaintiff's petition as to the joint liability of defendants, or other questions of law. Woodson County v. Toronto Bank, (1904) 128 Fed. 157.

Defective petition. - Where, under the allegations of the petition in the action and the petition for removal, the cause is not removable to the federal court, that court acquires no jurisdiction, and its orders in the premises are void, notwithstanding plaintiff's ap pearance and motion to remand the case, and his participation in the trial after the motion is overruled. Pierce r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., (1905) 86 S. W. 703, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 801.

Where the petition filed in the state court does not show prima facie that there is a removable controversy, the jurisdiction of the federal court cannot be conferred by consent or by any appearance, or even by a tria! therein. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jones, (1904) 118 Ky. 158, 80 S. W. 484.

Jurisdiction of the person. After a case has been removed from a state to a federal court, the defendant may move to vacate the service if a special appearance only is made for that purpose. Cavanagh . Manhattan

Transit Co., (1905) 133 Fed. 818.

The filing of a petition by a defendant in a state court to remove the cause to the proper Circuit Court of the United States does not prevent him, after the case is removed, from moving in the federal court to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction of defendant's person, he having appeared specially in the federal court for that purpose. Gebbie r. Review of Reviews Co., (1905) 134 Fed. 150.

Where a foreign insurance association, after suit brought in the state court, took seasonable steps to have the same removed to the federal court, it may, after such removal, appear specially for the purpose of moving to dismiss on the ground that the court had not obtained jurisdiction of defendant's person. Greenleaf v. National Assoc. of Railway Postal Clerks, (1904) 130 Fed. 209.

Service of process on the secretary of a foreign corporation while present in New York on business not connected with the company held insufficient to confer jurisdiction over the defendant on removal of the cause to the federal court. Phelps v. Connecticut Co., (1911) 188 Fed. 765.

Jurisdiction limited to statutory grounds. - The jurisdiction acquired by a federal court by removal is strictly limited to the statutory grounds, and rests solely on the state of facts and controversy of record as brought from the court of original cognizance, and neither acquiescence of the parties nor the action of the state court can enlarge the statutory jurisdiction of the federal court nor divest that of the state court. Willard . Chicago, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 165 Fed. 181.

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. See also Clark v. Wells, (1906) 203 U. S. 164, 27 S. Ct. 43, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 138.

Where a state court has acquired jurisdiction of a suit by attachment against a foreign corporation under the state statute, a federal court has jurisdiction on removal of the cause by either the defendant or a garnishee. Greevy v. Jacob Tome Institute, (1904) 132 Fed. 408.

Waiver of objection. By removing a cause to the federal court, defendant consents to the assumption of jurisdiction of his person by the court of the particular district to which the cause is removed. Shawnee Nat. Bank v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., (1909) 175 Fed. 456.

The requirement that an action in the federal court based upon a diversity of citizenship be brought in the district of the resi dence of either plaintiff or defendant is waived by defendant's removal of the cause to the federal court from the state court where it is brought. De Valle Da Costa v. Southern Pac. Co., (1908) 160 Fed. 216.

Where defendant, a foreign corporation, when sued by an alleged alien in the Illinois state courts, removed the cause to the federal Cireuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, it thereby waived any objection to the venue and its right to be sued in the federal district of its residence. Cucciarre r. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 163 Fed. 38.

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. Clark v. Weils, (1906) 203 U. S. 164, 27 S. Ct. 43. 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 138.

Legal and equitable remedies and defenses. Where a cause is removed to a federal court from a state court which was competent to grant either legal or equitable relief, the plaintiff may proceed in the federal court either at law or in equity; but if he elects to proceed in equity, and no case for equitable relief is made, such court cannot retain and try the cause as an action at law. Union

Stockyards Co. v. Nashville Packing Co., (1905) 140 Fed. 701, 72 C. C. A. 195.

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 r. Allen, (1910) 152 N. C. 720, 68 S. E. 207.

On removal of an equitable cause, the complaint or bill should be redrafted to conform to the equity practice in the federal courts. Thornton N. Motley Co. v. Detroit Steel, etc., Co., (1904) 130 Fed. 396.

When a suit in equity is removed from a state to a federal court, it must thereafter conform to the equity practice and rules in force in such court, regardless of the forms of practice in equitable proceedings in the state court. Bryant Bros. Co. t. Robinson, (1906) 149 Fed. 321, 79 C. C. A. 259.

But the provision of equity rule 94 that a bill by a stockholder, founded on rights of the corporation, shall be verified by oath, cannot be applied to a bill filed in a state court, and from thence removed to a federal court. Maeder r. Buffalo Bill's Wild West Co., (1904) 132 Fed. 280.

Restraining proceedings in state court. — A bill to restrain a state court from proceeding in an action at law after jurisdiction has been removed to the federal court, until the question of removability has been determined, is maintainable as an auxiliary proceeding to protect the federal court's jurisdiction and to prevent unnecessary, embarrassing, fruitless, and expensive litigation. Donovan v. Wells, (C. C. A. 1909) 169 Fed. 363.

Where a cause was properly removed to a federal court, but the state court erroneously denied a motion for an order transferring the cause, the federal court has jurisdiction on the application of the party removing the cause to grant an ancillary injunction restraining the opposite party from taking further proceedings in the state court, without violating R. S. sec. 720 [4 Fed. Stat. Annot. 509] forbidding a federal court from enjoining proceedings in a state court. Madisonville Traction Co. r. St. Bernard Min. Co., (1905) 196 U. S. 239, 25 S. Ct. 251, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 462; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Langley, (1906) 145 Fed. 415.

Where a state court wrongfully attempted to exercise jurisdiction after the case had been transferred to the federal court by defendant filing a copy of the record therein after the denial of his petition to remove, such subsequent exercise of jurisdiction by the state court will be enjoined. Donovan v. Wells, (C. C. A. 1909) 169 Fed. 363.

Where a proceeding to acquire land for a railroad right of way was properly removed to the federal court after the report of commissioners had been filed in the state court, the state court having been deprived of jurisdiction by the removal proceedings, the federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin the plaintiff from proceeding further with the action in the state court. Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co., (1905) 196 U. S. 239, 25 S. Ct. 251, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 462.