Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/666

 652 fEDRRAL REPORTEE. �In Equity, Motion to i-emand. �The first ground of the motion to remand was because the tran- script from the state court was not filed until the second day of the next succeeding term of the federal court. In explauation of this delay, the attorney for the petitioner filed an affidavit, the substan^ tial part of which is in the following words : �" I f urtlier state that I obtained said copy a few days before the first day of the present terin otthis court, for the purpose of examining the same to see that it was correct. I had examined the said copy before the first day of the term, and had determined to flle it aocording to the condition of the bond, but on the first day of the term, being hurried about many matters of business, and my presence being reijuired in one or more of the courts — state or federal — then iu session, the copy of the record, or the filing of it, escaped my mind, and I did not think of it till the night of that day and after the office of the clerk of the court had been closed for the night. Early in the morning of tiie next day 1 brought the copy of the] recsord from my office to the court-house and had the clerk file it at once. I further state that the omission to flle the said copy arose from the cause stated, and not from ahy other cause, and not from any desire or intention to hinder or delay the suit or the progresa thereof." �The second ground for the mbtipti waiS that the petition for removal shows upon the face of it that the case is not removable : �(1) Because neither a next friend or'guardian ad litem of a minor defend- ant can remove the caae, or enter an appearance in the federal court in com- pliance with the condition of the bond for removal ; nor can the father of the said minor, as such father, do so. (2) Because all the parties — ^plaintifE and defendajat— are shown to be citizens of Tennessee, and the allegation of the petition to the contrary is shown by the record to be untrue. �The facts appearing by the record are that the plaintiflF, who is a citizen: of Tennessee, filed this bill as assignee in bankruptc.»- of Robert McKenna, who is also a citizen :0f Tennessee, against tiie said bankrupt and his daughter, Maud B. McKenna, a minor, wh> is alleged in the bill, aocording to the state praotice, to be "a resident " of Shelby county, Tennessee, as are the other defendants, all being likewise citizens of Tennessee. The object of the bill is to set aside alleged fraudaient conveyances of land in Shelby county, Tennessee, made by the bankrupt for the benefit of his wife and children, all of ■whom have died since the conveyances except this defendant, Maud B. McKenna. The petition for removal purports to be "the petition ■of Maud B. McKenna, by her father and next friend, Eobert Mc- Kenna," and is signed and sworn to by him. It states that she is "a citizen and resident of Louisville, in the state of Kentucky, ami that all the other parties to this suit, both plaintifi and defendants. ��� �