Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/209

 194 FEDERAL REPORTER. �up after the question of remoyal is settled. The latter question must be settled now upon the complaint. If, hefeafter, under any different phase of the case, it should appear that the cause does not really or substantially involve a dispute or controversy within the jurisdiction of this court, it will be the duty of the, court, under sec- tion 5 of the act of 1875, to remand it to the state court. The case is one directly within the decision in Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, and it must be held that the case was one for a removal of the whole of the suit by the trustees, even though Melcher or Stanfield, or both of them, may have been proper parties to the suit. There is noth- ing in the case of Blake y. McKim, 103 U. S. 336, which in any man- ner qualifies any thing decided in Barney v. Latham. In that case there was » single controversy between the plaintiff, a citizen of Massachusetts, and three executors, two ofwhom were citizens of Massachusetts, and one of whom was a citizen of New York, the suit being one to recover the amount of a bond executed by the testator of the defendants. The court held that the case was not removable under either of the two clauses of section 2 of the act of 1875, on the ground that all of the executors were indispensable parties to the suit, and that two of them were citizens of the same state with the plaintiff, and that the suit embraced only one indivisible controversy. . The state court made an order accepting the petition for removal and the bond filed, and ordering the removal of the suit into this court. This, order was made without prior notice to the attorney for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff contends that the proceedings for removal were therefore irregular. The act of 1875 does not require any notice. The filing of the petition and bond makes it the duty of the state court to aecept them and to proceed no further in the suit. In the present case the petition and the bond were filed on the twenty- seventh of July, 1881, and the court on that day accepted them with- out requiring any previens notice. As was said by this court in Wehl v. Wald, 17 Blatchf. 346: "If, as matter of discretion, a state court can or does require notice in any case of removal, such notice was dispensed with in this case by the state court ; and, the matter being one of practice, it is for the state court to regulate its own practice, and this court will not review such a question." It has always been held in this court that no notice was necessary. Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co. 8 Blatchf. 248, 247. �The bond for removal is not executed by Stevens and Richardson, nor does it name them as obligors. It is executed by two other per- sons, who are named in it as obligors. It recites that Stevens and ��� �