Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/317

 AliDEICH V. CBOUCH. 805 �Aldrich V. Crouch, impleaded, etc. (Uircuit Court, N. D. Illinois. February 9, 1882.) �1. BsuoTAL OF Cause — Showing Requirbd. �It must aflarinatively appear on the record, or by f acts in the petition, that the case could net have beea heard and tried at a term before the application was made. �2. SaMB — CONSTUBCTION OF SECTION 3 OF ACT OF MaKCH 3, 1875. �The construction of the statute is that if the case is in a condition where it can be tried in conformity with the law and the practice of the court, then an application after that term in which it is in that condition cornes too late �3. Samb— Application under Act dp 1867. �The statute of 1867 does not permit a citizen of the state in which a suit is brought to make application to remove on account of prejudice, but only the citizen of another state, where the suit is betweeu such citizen and the citizen of the state lA which the suit ia brought. �A. C. S tory, for plaintiff, �George W. Kretzinger, for defendant. �Deummond, C. J. The plaintiff is a citizen of South Garolina, and the defendants are citizens of Illinois. Crouch is the only party who has been served with process and appears in court. An action at law with the usual money counts was commenced in the circuit court of Cook county on the fifteenth day of March, 1881, and on the twenty-fifth day of April following the defendant Crouch filed his plea. Under the law of this state there was a term of the circuit court for every month, The practice act of the state required that the clerk should keep a docket of all the causes pending for each term. There was to be a certain number of cases set for each day of the term, and the cases were to be tried and disposed of in the order in which they were placed on the docket, unless the court, for good and suflficient cause, should otherwise direct. On the twentieth day of October, 1881, Crouch filed his petition for the removal of the case to this court, and gave bond under the act of congress. When the transcript was filed in this court it was, on motion of the plaintiff, remanded to the state court, for the reason that it did not appear from the record that the application for a removal was made in time, within the meaning of the act of congress. After the cause was thuB remanded to the state court it was placed at the foot of the trial calendar, and on the twenty-fifth of January, 1882, there was another petition filed in the state court for removal of the cause, and a V.10,no.3— 20 ��� �