Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/378

 TEADBBS' BANK OF CHICAGO », TALLMADGE. 363 �plainant from this business, which he was bound to aid and assist, ■was, to a large extent, the cause of the failure. Under these cireum- stanees, the complainant cannot urge as a cause of action in a. court of equity that Holbrook restored to the corporation all he had re- ceived, placed it, so far as possible, in stutu quo, and did not prevent the application of its property to the extinction of an obligation which had existed before he had any connection with it. �The complainant has failed to establish his cause, and the decree must be that the bill be dismissed. ���Tbadeks' Bane of Chicago v. Tallmadgb and anolher. �{Circuit Court, S. D. Feto York. October 25, 18S1 ) �1. Rbmoval of Causes— Fihbt Tehm. �After the expiration of a term of the state court at which the suit could be legally tried, it is too late to flie a petition for its removal to this court. �2. SAMB—JuBismcTioN— State Court. �The circuit court is not preoluded by the decision of the state court from determining'for itself whether or not the removal was made in time. �Strong de Cadwalader, for plaintiff. �James G. Foley, for defendants^ �Blatchfobd, C. J. This is a suit at law, commenced in a court of the state and removed into this court by the plaintiff. Eaeh defend- ant answered separately in the state court. �The case was duly noticed for trial by the plaintiff and by each of the de- fendants for a term of the state court, to be held on the flrst Monday of May, 1881, which was May 2d. AU the notices of trial were served on or before April 18th. On April 18th the state court, on the application of one of the defendants, made an order that the plaintiff file security for costs within 10 days from the service of the order, or show cause to the contrary on April 29th, and that in the raean time, or, if security should be filed, tlien until such security should justify, if excepted to, the plaintiff's proceedings should be stayed. This stay continued till May 14th, when it ended. On the seventh of May each defendant gave notice of a motion for May 16th for a commission to talie testimony in Missouri, and for a stay of the trial of the action till the return of the commission. On the first of September the plaintiff filed a peti- tion for the removal of the suit into this court. The order of removal was made by the state court on that day. It states that the petition was flled " before the term at which said cause could be flrst tried, and before the trial thereof, to-wit, on the flrst day of September, 1881." The petition bears date August 24th, and was verified August 25th. It states that issue was joined on or about April 15, 1881 ; " that the said suit is not yet ready for trial ; and that the sarae could not be tried at the last term of the court, nor can it be ��� �