All the acts regulating the removal of causes are combined and codified in Chapter III of the Judicial Code, including sections 28-39. Section 28, down to the proviso at the end, is identical with section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875, as amended by the acts of March 3, 1887, and October 13, 1888, except the substitution of the district for the cir cuit court. Sections 29 and 30 are, with mere verbal changes, section 3 of the Acts of March 3, 1887, and October 13, 1888. Sec tions 31, 32, 33 and 35 are sections 641, 642, 643, 644 and 645 of the Revised Statutes spectively. Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 are sec tions 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively of the act of March 3, 1875, as amended by acts of March 3, 1887 and Oct. 13, 1888. In the repealing proviso of the Judicial Code contained in Chapter XIV, all the statutes and sections of the Revised Statutes, for which the sec tions of Chapter III are thus substituted are expressly repealed (including the whole of the act of March 3, 1875, which repeal of course carries the amendments to that act in the acts of March 3, 1887, and August 3, 1888). The limitations of jurisdiction of the federal courts declared in the statutes thus embodied in the Judicial Code limit the jurisdiction as to actions remoNced from state courts as well as to those originally begun in the circuit court ; Hyde v. Victoria Land Co., 125 Fed. 970.
The constitutional right of congress to en act the legislation providing for the removal of causes "arising under the laws of the Unit ed States has long since passed beyond doubt. It was exercised almost contempo raneously with the adoption of the constitu tion, and the power has been in constant Use ever since." The jurisdiction of the eral courts "is essential, also, to a uniform and consistent administration of national laws. . . . The founders of the constitu tion could never have intended to leave to the possibly varying decisions of the state courts what the laws of the government it established are, what rights they confer, and what protection should be extended to those who execute them ;" Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 265, 25 L. Ed. 648. The removal of suits from the state courts depends on the legislation of congress; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131, 153, 8 Sup. Ct. 379, 31 L. Ed. 374. "The constitution declares the lines with which congress may confer jurisdiction, but the ground and limit of actual jurisdic tion to be exercised by the court are to be found in the acts of congress and not in the constitution ;" In re Cilley, 58 Fed. 977.
In determining whether an amount in dis pute exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the plaintiff's demand, unless colorable, must furnish the rule, but where the law does give the rule, the legal cause of action, and not the plaintiff's demand, must be regarded ; Hayward v. Mfg. Co., 85 Fed. 4, 29 C. C. A.
438. See JURISDICTION.
Where the main controversy is removed the ancillary proceedings go with it without respect to the amount involved ; Lanning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. 657. And a proceeding which is merely ancillary to a decree of fore closure in a state court is not removable; Daugherty v. Sharp, 171 Fed. 466.
Chapter III of the Judicial Code, which is practically a re-enactment of the law as it stood upon the act of 1887, authorizes the removal from the state courts of the follow ing classes of suits: 1. Suits at law or in equity arising under the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
2. Any other suits of which the district courts of the United States have jurisdiction under the act.
3. Any suits in which there is a controver sy wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as be tween them.
4. Any suit pending in a state court in which the defendant, being a citizen of an other state, shall make it appear to the dis trict court that from prejudice or local influ ence he will not be able to obtain justice in the state court.
In all these cases the jurisdictional limit of $2,000 is applicable. It was at first doubt ed whether this was so in cases removed on the ground of prejudice or local influence, and there were decisions to the effect that the limitation of amount did not apply in those cases ; Fales v. Ry; Co., 32 Fed. 673 ; McDermott v. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 529, 3 L. R. A. 455; Frishman v. Ins. Co., 41 Fed. 449 ; but it was finally settled by the supreme court that the limitation applies in this as in other eases ; In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 11 Sup. Ct. 141, 34 L. Ed. 738. Provisions are also continued by Chapter III for the removal of causes in which civil rights were denied, as previously provided in section 641, of suits against revenue of ficers as in section 643, or by aliens against civil officers of the United States as in sec tion 644. In all cases, the removal is, of course, to the district courts in lieu of the circuit courts, as theretofore.
The proceeding for removal Is by petition filed in the state court, upon which an order is made, if the case is within the act, direct ing the removal, upon the filing of a bond, with surety, for entering a copy of the rec ord in the circuit court, where the case pro ceeds as if originally commenced therein ; if improperly removed it may be remanded to the state court and there proceeded with. The proceedings under the act of 1887 are generally of the same character as those un der the preceding acts, and, as a rule, the decisions under the latter are applicable, with the exception, of course, of cases relat ing to the construction of acts repealed and not supplied by subsequent legislation.