By a proviso at the end of the Jud. Code, § 26, no case arising under the Employers' Lia bility Act of April 22, 1908, can be removed to a federal court and this was enforced by a remand of such case to the state court upon the ground that under the Jud. Code con sidered as a whole, including the proviso, the right of removal did not exist in such case ; Lee v. Ry. Co., 193 Fed. 685; on any ground whatever; Hulac v. Ry. Co., 194 Fed. 747 ; McChesney v. R. Co., 197 Fed. 85 ; and the same result was reached in the Second Em ployers' Liability Cases, Mondou v. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44, where, after quoting from the Employers' Liability Act of 1908, as amended in 1910, the provision that the jurisdiction of the federal courts is Made "concurrent with that of the several states, and no case arising under this act and brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States," the court added that the amendment, as appears by its language, instead of granting jurisdiction to the state courts, presupposes that they al ready possess it.
Where several are sued as partners and only one has been served, he is not precluded from removal by the non-joinder of the others in the removal proceedings ; Tremper v. Schwabacher, 84 Fed. 413. Where one may sue either one of two parties and he chooses to sue both, he may do so, though his mo tive in joining them is to prevent a removal to a federal court ; Deere, Wells & Co. v. Ry. Co., 85 Fed. 876.
A suit between a state and citizens of an other state cannot be removed on the ground of citizenship ; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 6 Sup. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 962 ; Pos tal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 15 Sup. Ct. 192, 39 L. Ed. 231; State v. Trustees of University, 65 N. C. 714, Fed. Cas. No. 10,318; Connecticut v. Adams, 9 Ohio C. C. 21, 6 0. C. D. 46. Nor a suit between a state and a foreign corporation ; Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185, 22 Sup, Ct. 47, 46 L. Ed. 144 ; but in a suit by rail road commissioners to restrain a railroad company from violating the law and a late order of the commissioners the state is not the real party plaintiff so as to preclude a re mova 1, although it is contingently liable for costs ; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Ware house Com'rs, 183 U. S. 53, 22 Sup. Ct. 18, 46 L. Ed. 78 ; and the mere presence on the rec ord of a state as a party plaintiff, will not defeat removal, if it appears that the state has no real interest ; Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. 581, 52 L. Ed. 876.
Corporations existing by virtue of acts of congress may remove to the federal courts actions brought against them in the state courts, on the ground that they are "suits arising under the laws of the United States" ; Supreme Lodge of Knights of Pythias v. Hill,
76 Fed. 468, 22 C. C. A. 280.
As to the status of corporations as non residents, see Patch v. R. Co., 207 U. S. 277, 28 Sup. Ct. 80, 52 L. Ed. 204, 12 Ann. Cas. 1518; Martin's Adm'r v. R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 14 Sup. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311. "Citizens," as used in the removal laws and jurisdiction al statutes, means residence with the inten tion of permanently remaining in a particular place ; Harding v. Standard Oil Co., 182 Fed. 421. Where there is no separable contro versy, the cause can not be removed on the ground of diversity of citizenship unless all the defendants are non-residents of the state in which it is brought, notwithstanding that the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from any of the defendants ; Parkinson v. Barr, 105 Fed. 81. The removal provisions in the Judicial Code, § 28, though available as between citizens of states, are not so to citizens of territories ; Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Copper Co., 200 Fed. 808.
The diversity of citizenship at the com mencement of the action must appear from the petition ; Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. 230, 9 Sup. Ct. 518, 32 L. Ed. 914 ; La Confi ance. Compagnie Anonyme D'Assurance v. Hall, 137 U. S. 61, 11 Sup. Ct. 5, 34 L. Ed. 573; and if it does not it cannot be supplied by amendment; Fife v. Whitten, 102 Fed. 537; though imperfect statements may he amended ; Crehore v. R. Co., 131 U. S. 240, 9 Sup. Ct. 692, 33 L. Ed. 144. Diversity of citizenship must be shown to have existed when the suit was commenced, as well as at the time of the application for removal; Wil son v. Giberson, 124 Fed. 701; Kellam v. Keith, 144 U. S. 568, 12 Sup. Ct. 922, 36 L. Ed. 544. A federal court cannot acquire ju risdiction by removal on the ground of di versity of citizenship where neither of the parties is a resident of the district and there is no consent or waiver of rights ; Southern Pac. Co. v. Burch, 152 Fed. 168, 82 C. C. A. 34 ; Yellow Aster Min. & Mill. Co. v. Crane Co., 150 Fed. 580, 80 C. C. A. 566; Bottoms v. R. Co., 179 Fed. 318 ; Goldberg-Bowen & Co. v. Ins. Co., 152 Fed. 831; and in such case the action should, on plaintiff's motion, be remanded ; Turk v. R. Co., 193 Fed. 252. Where an alien sues a citizen in a state court in the district of the latter's residence, the cause is not removable unless a federal ques Lion is presented ; H. J. Decker, Jr., & Co. v. R. Co., 189 Fed. 224.