xi Bromley, Main v..... Main v. Bromley. Falls Wire Manuf'g Co. v. Bro654 derick. Gaines v. Hammond's Adm'r.. 449 Green, Hutchinson v.. 833 ....... 339 449 477 Hutchinson v. Green.... 833 477 Knapp, Stout & Co. Company, 221 Mayer, Wear v. 658 DISTRICT COURT, W. D. WISCONSIN. Hamilton v. Chouteau. Hammond's Adm'r, Gaines v.. Harwood, Oberteuffer v. Oberteuffer v. Harwood.. 828 828 CIRCUIT COURT, E. D. MISSOURI. 290 290 Co. V.... 654 27 794 EIGHTH CIRCUIT. CIRCUIT COURT, E. D. ARKANSAS. Chapin v. Walker.. Johnson v. Lewis. Lewis, Johnson v. Walker, Chapin v.. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. Co., Singer Manuf'g Co. v. Stanage. 279 Stanage, Singer Manuf'g Co. v. 279 Steiger v. Third Nat. Bank.... 569 Third Nat. Bank, Steiger v. 569 794 Walsh v. M., C. & N. W. R. Co. 797 27 Wear v. Mayer.... 658 CIRCUIT COURT, W. D. MISSOURI, W. D. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Nuited States Circuit and District Courts KAEISER V. ILLINOIS CENT. R. Co. (Circuit Court, D. Iowa. October 20, 1880.) 1 REMOVAL WHEN REQUISITE CITIZENSHIP MUST EXIST. A case cannot be removed, under the act of 1875, on the ground of citizenship, unless it appears from the record that at the time the suit was commenced the parties were citizens of different states. SAME-AMENdment of RECORD. In such case, an amended transcript may be filed, where the record in the state court did in fact disclose the requisite citizenship, under the statute, before the order of removal was made. 8. SAME-SAME. Quare, whether such record of the state court can be amended so as to conform to the statute, where the term has passed "at which by law the cause could be first tried" in the state court.-[Ed. Petition for Removal. On the third day of February, 1880, the plaintiff commenced his action in the district court of Cherokee county, Iowa. Defendant appeared in the state court at the Febru ary term, 1880, and at that term the plaintiff filed his petition for removal to this court: v.6, no.1-1 In the District Court of the State of Iowa, in and for Cherokee County. W. M. KAEISER, Plaintiff, vs. THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAIL ROAD COMPANY, Defendant. PETITION FOR REMOVAL. To the said District Court: Your petitioner respectfully represents that he is a resi dent of Polk county, in the state of Iowa; that the defend. ant, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, is a corporation duly and legally organized under the laws of the state of Illinois; that this suit is a suit at law, and of a civil nature, and that the amount in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum of five bundred ($500) dollars; wherefore your petitioner prays that an order be made removing this suit to the United States circuit court for the district of Iowa, in accordance with the provisions of section 639 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. W. M. KAEISER, By BERRYHILL & HENRY, State of Iowa, Polk County-ss. I, W. M. Kaeiser, being sworn, do say that I have read the foregoing petition, and that the statements thereof are true, as I verily believe. W. M. KAEISER. Subscribed and sworn to by said W. M. Kaeiser, this fourteenth day of February, 1880, before me. [Seal.] Filed February 17, 1880. GEO. F. HENRY, Notary Public. OSCAR CHASE, Clerk. An order of removal was made, and a transcript of the record has been filed in this court. Answer has been filed here, and a demurrer thereto has been argued; but the court, doubting its jurisdiction, called the attention of counsel to |