Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/20

 6 FEDEEAIi EEPOBTEB. �further, that "if the federal court had, by no previens act, jurisdiction to pass upon and determine the controversy existing between the parties in the parish court of Orleans, it was invested with the neeessary jurisdiction by this act itself as soon as the case was transferred. In authorizing and requiring the transfer of cases involving particular con- troversies from a state court to a federal court, the statute thereby clothed the latter court with ail the anthority easential for the complete adjudication of the controversies, even though it shouW be admitted that that court could not have taken original cognizanee of the cases." And further, after discuss- ing the point that the suit was one to annul the will as a muni- ment of title, the opinion proceeds: "But * * * it is sufficient, for the disposition of the case, that the statute of 1867, in authorizing a transfer of the cause to the federal court, does, in our judgment, by that fact, invest that court with ail needed jurisdiction to adjudicate finally and settle the controversy involved." With equal force might this language be used in considering the question as it arises in the case at bar under the removal act of 1875. �It is also observed by Justice Field, in his opinion, that "the limitation of the original jurisdiction of the federal court, and of the right of removal from a state court, to a class of cases between citizens of different states involving a desig- nated amount, and brought by or against resident citizens of the state, was only a matter of legislative discretion. The constitution imposes no limitation upon the class of cases involving controversies between citizens of different states to which the judicial power of the United States may be ex- tended; and congress may, therefore, lawfuUy provide for bringing, at the option of either of the parties, ail such con- troversies within the jurisdiction of the federal jiidiciary." �Since the jurisdiction to establish a lost will was vested by statute of the state in the circuit courts of the state, and not in the probate courts; and since the act of congress of 1875 autborizes the removal from the state circuit court to the federal court of any suit involving a specifled amount, and in M'hieh there is a controversy between citizens of different states; and in view of the enunoiation of the supreme court ����