Beede v. Cheeney

• Decision Date: 01 December 1880
• Citation: Beede v. Cheeney, 5 F. 388 (D. Minn. 1880)
• Parties: BEEDE v. CHEENEY and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

5 F. 388

BEEDE v. CHEENEY and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

December, 1880

M. O Little, for plaintiff.

A Oppenheim and W. P. Warner, for defendant.

McCRARY C.J.

In this case there is a motion to remand on the ground that the bond accepted by the state court to secure the filing of the transcript in this court, and the payment of any costs that might arise because of the wrongful removal is not such a bond as the statute requires. We are of opinion that the jurisdiction of this court in a case removed from a state court does not depend upon the form, nor even upon the substance, of the bond which is presented to and approved by the state court before removal. If the statute in other respects is complied with, and a copy of the record is filed here in accordance with the statute, the removal is complete. But, upon looking into this record, we observe what counsel seem to have overlooked-- the petition for removal of the cause into this court is in the present tense. It states that the defendants are residents of another state. Under the judiciary act of 1789 the supreme court has held that the record must show the citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the action. In a case...