Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/272

 258 raOBBAL BBPOBTEB. �any moneys from the business carried on at the place, and was unable to make the business pay expanses, but was obliged to close it, to his damage $750, -which he sots up aa a counter claim against the plaintiffs. �The answer denies ail the allegations of the complaint not thus admitted or denied, and demands judgment against the plaintiffs that the -complaint be dismissed with costs, and that he have judgment against the plaintiffs for $750. This answer was put in September 13, 1880. A reply, sworn to September 15, 1880, was put in by the plaintiff, replying "to the allegations of counter claim contained in the answer," and denying eaoh and every of said allegations. �On the twentieth of September, 1880, the defendant pre- sented to the state court a petition, signed and sworn to by him September 18, 1880, setting forth the pendency of the suit as an action commenced and pending by the plaintiffs against the defendant ; that the plaintiffs are, and were at the time of the commencement of the action, citizens of New York, and the defendant a citizen of New Jersey; "that the matter in dispute in this action exceeds, exclusive of costs, the Bum or value of $500;" that "the defendant has appeared in this action, in this court, and answered the complaint;" that the action had not yet been tried ; and that no term had passed since it was commenced at which it could be tried. �The petition prays that "the said suit may be removed" to this court. The proper bond was given and approved by the state court, and on the twentieth of September, 1880, that court made an order ex parte, which recites the contents of the petition and the tenor of the bond; and, "on reading and filing a copy of the pleadings in said action, " and the petition and the bond, orders that the petition and bond be accepted, and declares that said court will proceed no further in the suit, it being removed to this court. Afterwards, and before the commencement of the next term of this court, and before a copy of the record in the state court was filed in this court, that court made an order vacating the said order of removal. The ground assigned for making this second order, in the decision made by Judge McAdam, the judgeof the state court, ����