Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/693

 WOOLEIDGB V. Ii'kENIiA. 67i) �it does 80 ariso. TJnder the Revised Statutes, I have no doubt of the power of the courts to permit amendments to these petitions for removal. There is no reason why they should be any exception to the gener'ai practice under these statutes. Eev. St. §§ 954, 948; Bump, Fed. Proc. 148, notes. Defective averments have been amended in these petitions by permission of the courts, and it seems the usual liberality, under like statutes, would justify an entire change of the petition by alleging another ground for retaoval than that confeained in tHe petition. Dilh Eem. § 79, p. 99, and notes. In 'Barclay V. Levee Com. 1 Woods. 254, -the' petition for removal erroneoubly alleged that the jiarty was a citizen of Louisiana, and he waspermitted io amend by sho'ifing he was a citizen of Tennessee; and in Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273, it is said these petitions may be amended. In Kaiser v. Railroad Go. & Fed. Eep. 1, 5, the plain- iiff sought a removal, and anticipating that the motion to remand would be decided against him, because it was not shown by the rec- ord that the difference in citizenship existed at the time the suit was commenced, aslied leave to amend fAc ttanscript from the state court, and he was peirmitted to do it, with the expression of a doubt whether he cbald go further in amending than to show a more complete tran- Bcript, and whether he could, by such an amendment, show that as a fact the difference in citizenship did then exist. The question was reserved. In Beede v. Cheeney, 5 Fed. Eep. 388, the cause was remanded because the petition was in the present tense, and there- fore did not show that the parties were at the time the suit waa com- menced of different citizenship. But in neither of these cases was application made to amend the petition for removal, as in the other cases already cited, where it was allowed; and I think they cannot be taken as authority against the right to amend. The requirement that the record shall show jurisdiction is no more imperative in removed than original causes ; and in the latter, under the statutes authorizing the courts to permit amendments, they are very liberal in allowing the jurisdictional facts to be shown by amendment of the declaration or other pleading. Michaeton v. Denison, 3 Day, 294; Fishcr V. Rutherford, Bald. 188, 193; Re McKibben, 12 N. B. E. 97, 102; Kelsey v. Railroad, 14 Blatchf. 89; Bump, Fed. Proc. 148, notes; Id. 655, and notes; Connelly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 656, 564; Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480. The statute is very broad, and says that no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings shall be abated, arrested, quaehed, or reversed for any defect or want of form, but the courts shall permit either party ��� �