Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/397

 CUSTIN V. DEGEBB. S85 �CUBTIN ». DeOKBB. (Circuit Court, E. D. Wiaconein. Januaiy, 1881.) �1. REMOVAIi— WHEN RBQtriBITB OiTIZBNSHIP MUBT EXMT. �A cause may be removed under the act of 1876 if the required citi- zenshjp exista at the time the petition for removal was flled. �2. Same— Same. �The petition for removal, made by the complainant, alleged that at the date of the petition she was a citizen of the state of Illinois, and that the defendant was a citizen of the state of Wisconsin. �The defendant moved to remand, on the ground that the petition for removal did net show that the parties were citizens of different States at the time the action was commenced in the state courts. Edd, that the motion to remand must be overruled. — [Ëo. �In Equity. Motion to Eemand. �Murphey e Ooodwin, for complainant. �A. O. Weissert, for defendant. �Dyer, D. J. This is a case removed from the state court. The petition for removal was made by the complainant, and alleges that at the date of the petition she was a citizen of the state of Illinois, and that the defendant was a citizen of the state of Wisconsin. �The defendant now moves to remand the case on the ground that the petition for removal does not show that the parties were citizens of. different states at the time the action was commenced in the state court. �The removal of the case to this court was under the act of March 3, 1875, (18 U. S. St. at Large, 470, 471.) The question involved is, therefore, whether the right to remove a case, under that act, from the state court to the federal court, is dependent upon the citizenship of the parties at the time the action was commenced in the state court. In the case of Rawle V. Phelps, 9 Cent. L. Jour. 46, the learned district judge of the eastern district of Michigan, in a carefuUy-con- sidered opinion, held that to authorize a removal to the fed- eral court, under the act of 1875, the requisite citizenship must have existed at the time the suit was commenced in the state court. The question, it is understood, has not been decided by the supreme court. It was alluded to in the opin- �v.5,no,5 — 25 ����