A proceeding by mandamus to compel the register of the transfer of stock may be re moved ; Washington Imp. Co. v. Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 17,242 ; but not one on a plea which raises the issue of title to an office; State v. Johnson, 29 La. Ann. 399 ; nor an action in the nature of quo warranto to deter mlue the title to office of presidential elec tors ; State v. Bowen, 8 S. C. 382. Suits by attachment may be removed; Barney v. Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107, Fed. Cas. No. 1,031; eject ment suits ; Ex parte Turner, 3 Wall. Jr. 258, Fed. Cas. No. 14,245 ; a bill in equity to reform an insurance policy ; Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 6 Blatchf. 208, Fed.
Cas. No. 2,623 ; a suit to annul a will ; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, 23 L. Ed. 524 ; a railway foreclosure suit; Scott v. R. Co., 6 Biss. 529, Fed. Cas. No. 12,527; a condem nation proceeding; Searl v. School Dist. No. 2, .124 U. S. 197, 8 Sup. Ct. 460, 31 L. Ed. 415 ; a suit against a marshal for trespass for goods taken on attachment ; Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 11 Sup. Ct. 677, 35 L. Ed. 314 ; where the controversy involved the authority of the land department to grant a patent ; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 11 Sup. Ct. 819, 840, 35 L. Ed. 442 ; a proceeding to seize and sell a vessel under a mortgage ; W. G. Coyle & Co. v. Stern, 193 Fed. 582, 113 C. C. A. 450 ; a proceeding to condemn a right of way for a railroad ; South Dakota Cent. R. Co. v. R. Co., 141 Fed. 578, 73 C. C. A. 176 ; a suit to compel an executor to assent to a legacy ; Camp v. Field, 189 Fed. 285; an appeal to the state court from the decision of the state engi neer by one desiring to appropriate water from a stream : Waha-Lewiston Land & Wa ter Co. v. Irr. Co., 158 Fed. 137: a similar appeal from the award of commissioners to award damages for opening streets; Terre Haute v. R. Co., 106 Fed. 545; or a proceed ing in a state court to assess such damages; Kirby v. R. Co., 106 Fed. 551; or to con demn private property for a public use; Fish blatt v. Atlantic City, 174 Fed. 196 ; of a municipality; Kansas City v. Hennegan, 152 Fed. 249 ; or of a corporation ; Helena Pow er Transmission Co. v. Spratt, 146 Fed. 310; to recover a statutory penalty against a tele phone company ; Gruetter v. Tel. & Tel. Co., 181 Fed. 248 ; proceeding in garnishment after judgment ; Baker v. Mill Co., 149 Fed. 612. But a proceeding in condemnation is not re movable until by appeal to a court it has become a "suit"; Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. of Wyandotte County v. Water Co., 186 Fed. 315, 108 C. C. A. 393 ; but when exceptions to an award of benefits are filed in the coun ty court which has judicial powers, it is a suit and removable; Drainage Dist. No. 19, Caldwell Co., Mo. v. R. Co., 198 Fed. 253.
Actions against national banks or receiv ers thereof are removable; Guarantee Co. of North Dakota v. Hanway, 104 Fed. 369, 44 C. C. A. 312 ; as also suits against or for the acts of United States officers ; Woods v. Root, 123 Fed. 402, 59 C. C. A. 206; Bryant Bros. Co. v. Robinson, 149 Fed. 321, 79 C. C. A. 259; but to render such case remova ble the cause of action must have some con nection with official duties; People's U. S. Bank v. Goodwin, 162 Fed. 937 ; and the mere fact that defendant is a United States officer and claims to have been acting under an act of congress is not alone sufficient ; Stan field v. Water Users' Ass'n, 192 Fed. 596;
but a criminal prosecution for an assault committed in repelling an attack upon a posseman is removable under section 33 Judi cial Code; Com. of Virginia v. De Hart, 119 Fed. 626.
A suit in equity which appears on the face of the bill to have the effect of obstructing or defeating the enforcement of a judgment of a federal court is removable as involving a federal question; Cornue v. Ingersoll, 176 Fed. 194, 99 C. C. A. 548. But when a propo sition, claimed to raise a federal question, has been definitely decided by the supreme court, it ceases to be such within the removal act ; Arkansas v. R. Co., 134 Fed. 106. It must appear from the pleadings that the case is one which involves a federal question, where its removal is sought upon that ground ; Minnesota v. Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 24 Sup. Ct. 598, 48 L. Ed. 870. See FEDERAL QUESTION. A suit to recover a pen alty for a violation of the rules of a state railroad commission, being of a criminal na ture, is not removable; Arkansas v. R. Co., 173 Fed. 572 ; nor an action of mandamus, though under a statute damages may be re covered ; Mystic Milling Co. v. Ry. Co., 132 Fed. 289 ; Kelly v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft, 129 Fed. 830 ; nor a proceeding before• a state board of control to determine water rights: in re Silvies River, 199 Fed. 495. An action of tort against several de fendants for a conspiracy cannot be removed by a part of them ; Ex parte Audrews, 40 Ala. 639.
A foreign attachment on which a suit in equity is brought to establish the claim and enforce the lien is removable on the ground of diversity of citizenship where the requi site facts appear; Craddock v. Fulton, 140 Fed. 426.
A motion under a state statute as to cor porations, for executions against a stockhold er, cannot be removed; Webber v. Hum phreys, 5 Dill. 223, Fed. Cas. No. 17,326. Nor can an appeal under a state law from as sessment of taxes ; Upshur Co. v. Rich, 135 U. S. 407, 10 Sup. Ct. 651, 34 L. Ed. 196; or a writ of habeas corpus (under act of 1875); Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 6 Sup. Ct. 148, 29 L. Ed. 458.
Where the suit is in its nature an equita ble proceeding, it must proceed as such in the federal court, and in accordance with the rules governing equity cases in such court without regard to the system in the state court ; Neves v. Scott, 13 How. (U. S.) 268, 14 L. Ed. 140; Green v. Custard, 23 How. U. S.) 484, 16 L. Ed. 471. Where the suit unites legal and equitable questions of re lief or defence, a repleader is necessary after removal; Sands v. Smith, 1 Dill. 290, Fed. Cas. No. 12,305; Partridge v. Ins. Co., 15 Wall. (U. S.) 573, L. Ed. 229. The cir cuit court may issue a certiorari to bring In the record from the state courts. This was provided by the act of 1875 (18 Stat. L. 470) and not repealed by the act of 1887; but a certiorari is not an essential part of the pro ceeding and need only be resorted to if nec essary to procure the record; Scott v. R. Co., 6. Biss. 529, Fed. Cas. No. 12,527. The circuit court may enjoin further proceed ings in the state court : Abeel v. Culberson, 56 Fed. 329; French v. Hay, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 250 note, 22 L. Ed. 857, where it was held that the prohibition against injunctions by federal courts touching proceedings in the state courts has no application to such cases.
See Dillon, Removal of Causes (Black's ed.); UNITED STATES COURTS.