Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/109

 HENCECKEK V. BOSENBAUM. 97 �Hendeckeb V. Rosbnbaum and others. {Circuit Court, 8. B. New York. February 1, 1881.) �1. TntB pF BBMOVAIi-rAcT OF Mabch 3, 1875, } 3. �The words, " before or atthe term at which said cause could be flrst tried, and before the trial thereof," contained in section 8 ut the act of March 3, 1875, relating to the removal of causes, mean, in regard to snits tben pending, the iirst trial after the right of removal attaches» subsequently to the passage of the act. �2. Bamb— Sams. �Suit was brought in a state court, January, 1872; put at issue March, 1872 ; tried by a jury, June, 1878 ; verdict and judgment ob- tained by plaintiff, July, 1878; judgment affirmed by the general term of the court, March, 1879 ; judgment reversed by the court of appeals, and new trial ordered, June, 1880; judgment of court of appeals made judgment of court below, June 11, 1880; petition for removal filedby plaintiff December 31, 1880. ^Selc?, upon motion to remand, thatthe petition for removal was notflled intime, under sec- tion 3 of the act of 1875.— [Ed. �Motion to Eemand. �W. H. McDougaU, for plaintiff. �Nash e Holt, for defendants. �Blatchford, C. J. This suit was brought in a court of the state of New York, in January, 1872, and put at issue by an answer in March, 1872, making an issue of facttriableby a jury. It was tried before a jury in June, 1878, and the plaintiff had a Yerdict and a judgment in July, 1878, thereon. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the general term of the court in March, 1879. In June, 1880; the court of ap- peals reversed and annulled the judgments of the court below, and ordered a new trial. On June 11, 1880, the State court, by order, made the judgment of the court of appeals its judg- ment. In December, 1880, the plaintiff took proceedings in the state court for the removal of the cause to this court, before the second trial of it. The defendants now move to remand the cause to the state court on the ground that the removal was not made in time. �It is not claimed that the removal can be sustained under any provision of section 639 of the Revised Statutes. It �v.6,no.2 — 7 ��� �