removal cause was a suit in equity to enjoin the enforcement of, and to set aside, a judgment in a suit in the State court that had not been removed, in which the sheriff held the proceeds of attached property; it was held that the Federal court had no jurisdiction over the fund in the hands of the sheriff. It has been held that, after removal, the Federal court may set aside an attachment upon the ground that the State court had no power to grant the same. But when the State court had, upon a hearing, sustained the validity of the attachment or garnishment of a judgment of a Federal court; the Court to which the case was removed, declined to review the propriety of such order; but suggested that the Federal court, whose judgment was thus garnished, might properly disregard the writ.7 Where the State attachment law provided that, before the defendant's appearance, all creditors who applied to be made parties should share pro rata in the fund, and that, after such appearance, all other creditors should be deprived of a share in the fund; it was held that, after the removal of the attachment suit to the Federal court, the latter had no power to strike out the defendant's appearance in order to let in the other creditors. The sureties upon a delivery bond or a forthcoming bond remain liable, notwithstanding the removal.9

§ 555f. Effect of removal upon injunctions previously granted. An injunction granted by 'the State court before the removal remains in force thereafter, until it has been dissolved.1 Where a motion to continue the injunction or to make the same perpetual has been granted by the State court before the removal, the Federal court will ordinarily follow that decision.2

The Federal court after removal may continue an injunction previously granted by a State court, which a court of the United

5 Smith v. Schwed, Fed. 483.

6 Corbitt v. Farmers' Bank, 114 Fed. 602.

7 Loomis v. Carrington, 18 Fed. 97.

8 Second Nat. Bank v. New York Silk Mfg. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 12,601a.

9 Ramsey v. Coolbaugh, 13 Iowa 164; State v. Peck, 32 W. Va. 606, 9 S. E. 919.

§ 555f. 1 Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. 455 (2 McCrary 441); Fogg v. Fisk, 19 Fed. 235.

2 Carrington v. Florida R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2,448 (9 Blatchf. 468); New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 14 Fed. 373.

States could not have previously granted. A Federal court may make an order continuing an injunction granted by a State court before the removal, although the State court had no power to make the same.4

6

The Federal court may dissolve an injunction granted by a State court in a case which has since been removed.5 It will not do so because the will was not verified according to the practice in the Federal court; nor because the plaintiff, after the removal, fails to prosecute the application to continue the injunction upon the day fixed by the State court, which occurs before the transcript is filed in the District Court of the United States.7 A motion to dissolve the injunction may be made and heard upon due notice to the plaintiff at any time after the record has been filed in the Federal court; and even, it seems to have been held, before that time. It has been held that the hearing of a motion to dissolve such an injunction should not be postponed because of a motion to remand, based upon a defect in the form or amount of the removal bond.10 An original motion for an injunction on the face of the bill may be heard in the Federal court when noticed after the removal; although the papers are not in accordance with the State practice.11

§ 555g. Effect of removal upon receivers previously appointed. A receiver appointed before the removal of the case remains in possession until himself removed, and he may be required to account in the Federal court.1

The Federal court may remove or discharge a receiver appointed by the State court before the removal.2 It has been held

3 Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. 15; Hunt v. Fischer, 29 Fed. 801; Eureka & K. R. Co. v. California & N. Ry. Co., 103 Fed. 897.

4 Hower v. Weiss M. & El. Co., 56 Fed. 356.

5 Sharp v. Whiteside, 19 Fed. 156; State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 Fed. 353.

6 Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. 455 (2 McCrary 441).

7 Hamilton v. Fowler, 83 Fed. 321. 8 Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust,

17 Fed. 275 (5 McCrary 348).

9 Champlain Const. Co. v. O'Brien, 104 Fed. 930.

10 Coburn v. Cedar Val. Land & Cattle Co., 25 Fed. 791.

11 McLeod v. Duncan, Fed. Cas. No. 8,898 (5 McLean 342).

§ 555g. 1 Hinckley V. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 153, 25 L. ed. 591; Mack v. Jones, 31 Fed. 189, 196.

2 Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust, 17 Fed. 275.

that, where a motion to discharge a receiver has been denied by the State court, the Federal court will not review the same. Where a receiver appointed by a Federal court removed a suit brought against him in the State court; it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to a trial by jury, if he would have been so entitled in the State court.4

§ 555h. Effect of removal upon depositions and examinations in the State court. It has been held that the Federal court cannot compel a witness to sign a deposition, which has been taken from his testimony in shorthand previous to the removal; nor compel the defendant to file answers to interrogatories annexed to the petition, in accordance with the Iowa statute.2 It seems that an order of the State court for the examination of a party under section 870 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, after issue and before trial, must be vacated by the Federal court after removal.3 Where depositions taken to be used in an action in a State court that had been dismissed were admissible as evidence under the statute of the State in another suit subsequently brought, and such second suit was removed; it was held that such depositions were admissible in the Federal court.a Depositions taken subsequent to the removal before a referee previously appointed are no part of the record in the Federal court.5

§ 5551. Effect of removal upon contempt proceedings. It has been held: that the Federal court cannot punish a party for his previous violation of an order of the State court.1 Where

3 Bryant v. Thompson, 27 Fed. 881.

4 Bryant v. Thompson, 27 Fed. 881; Vany v. Receiver of Toledo, St. L. & K. C. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 379. § 555h. 1 Arnold v. Kearney, 29' Fed. 820.

2 Pierce v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 709.

3 Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 28 L. ed. 1117. Where, before the removal of a cause from the State to the Federal court, a reference was made to take the deposition of a

witness according to the State practice, to be used on a motion in the suit, it was held that the plaintiff

• must proceed with such reference after the removal of the cause. Bills v. New Orleans, St. L. & C. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 1,409 (13 Blatchf. 227).

4 Graveville v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 16 Fed. 435 (3 McCrary 385).

5 Miller v. Tobin, 18 Fed. 609 (9 Sawy. 401).

§ 5551. 1 Kirk v. Milwaukee D.

an order had been made directing the defendant to show cause why he should not be punished for a disobedience to an order of the State court, the proceeding thereupon was remanded, although jurisdiction of the original suit was maintained.2 Where an order in contempt proceedings had been appealed to the State Supreme Court before the removal, the Federal court held proceedings for the enforcement of such order in abeyance until the disposition of such appeal.3

§ 555j. Injunctions to stay proceedings in a State court after a removal. If the plaintiff threatens to proceed in the State court after a removal, or if he refuses to file his pleadings so that a transcript can be obtained,2 he may be enjoined from taking any further steps therein, even, it has been held, when the State is the plaintiff. The relief will not be denied on the ground that complainant had an adequate remedy at law in the State court, by moving to set aside the order of the State court

C. Mfg. Co., 26 Fed. 501. But see Williams M. & R. Co. v. Raynor, 7 Biss. 245, Fed. Cas. No. 17,748.

2 Voorhees v. Albright, Fed. Cas. No. 16,999.

3 Williams Mower & Reaper Co. v. Raynor, Fed. Cas. No. 17,748 (7 Biss. 245).

$555j. 1 French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250, 22 L. ed. 857; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494, 26 L. ed. 497; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Barnard Min. Co., 196 U. S. 239; Warren v. Ives, Fed. Cas. No. 17,197 (1 Flip. 356); Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. 849; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Ford, 35 Fed. 170; Abeel v. Culbertson, 56 Fed. 329; Williston v. Raymond, 213 Fed. 527; Alabama G. S. Ry. Co. v. American Cotton Oil Co., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 11; McCabe v. Guaranty Trust Co., C. C. A., 243 Fed. 845. Contra, Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,827, 6 Blatchf. 362; Penrose v. Penrose, Fed. Cas. No. 10,958

(17 Blatchf. 332); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daniels, 175 Fed. 302, where it was claimed that there were sham defendants fraudulently joined for the purpose of defeating the jurisdiction. Where, after the removal to a Federal court of an action for malicious prosecution on a charge of larceny, the plaintiff instituted in the State court a sec ond action for malicious prosecution on a charge of forgery connected with the same transaction, the State statutes not permitting the consolidation of the two prosecutions; it was held that the Federal court should not grant an injunction against the prosecution of the second suit. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cooper, 182 Fed. 710.

2 Abeel v. Culbertson, 56 Fed. 329; Miller v. Soule, 221 Fed. 493; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Feaster, 260 Fed. 881.

3 Abeel v. Culbertson, 56 Fed. 329.

denying the petition to remove, and appealing to the Supreme Court of the State from an adverse ruling thereon.

Such a motion will not ordinarily be granted before a motion. to remand the cause has been decided, unless the right of removal is beyond dispute.5 An injunction was refused where, although a petition for removal with a bond had been filed int the State court, no action had been taken upon them and no copy of the record had been filed in the Federal court, and where the petition had been filed with the clerk of the State court in vacation, but not presented to that court.7

Where, after a motion to remand had been denied, judgment was entered in the State court in favor of the plaintiff and in the Federal court in favor of the defendant, it was held that the Federal court had no power to enjoin the enforcement of the State judgment.8 Where the Federal court after an attempted removal has refused to assume jurisdiction upon the ground that the case was not removable, the decision cannot be reviewed by a bill in equity to enjoin the State court from further proceedings. When the removed case was brought at common law, the injunction is usually granted upon an original bill, which is considered to be ancillary in its nature, and which is filed in the District Court of the United States.10 In such a suit the propriety of an order denying a motion to remand cannot be reviewed. It has been held that a Court of the United States may compel, by a mandamus, a State court to allow a removal.12

4 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Chappell, 206 Fed. 688.

5 Frishman v. Insurance Co's., 41 Fed. 449; Sinclair v. Pierce, 50 Fed. 851.

6 Coeur d'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding, C. C. A., 93 Fed. 280. See Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Scott, 13 Fed. 793.

7 Coker v. Monaghan Mills, 110 Fed. 803.

8 Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Sheegog, 217 U. S. 599.

9 Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 217 Fed. 95.

10 Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239, 49 L. ed. 462; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Langley, 145 Fed. 415; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stepp, 151 Fed. 908.

11 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Chappell, 206 Fed. 688; McCabe v. Guaranty Trust Co., 243 Fed. 845.

12 Spraggins v. County Court of Humphries, 1 Cooke (Tenn.) 160, Fed. Cas. No. 13,246. But see § 457, supra.