65e FBDEKAL BEPOBTEB. �declare the forfeiture aud resume the grant belongs to the tJnited States, and can only be made effectuai by an act of congress or a judicial proceeding. Schulenburg v. Harriman, 21 "Wall. 4e. The allegations of the bill demurred to make a case, therefore, in which complainant, being the equitable owner of the land, finds faimself embarrassed by an apparent legal title in defendant, and therefore entitled to relief in a court of equity; • �The demurrer to the bill is therefore overruled, -with leave to defendant to answer within a reasouable time, to be aled by the court. ���Falls Wiee MANiJi'*G Ce. r. Beodebick. (CircuU Coitrtt E. D. MittoyH. March, 1881.) �1. ReMOVAL— COUKTBB ClaIM — AmOUHT IN DlBPUTB — AOT OF MaRCH �3,1875. �The claim oi the plaintiif , and not the counter claim of the defend- ant, should fix the amount in dispute, in detennining the right to remove a cause from the state court under the act of MarchS, 1875. �Glarkson v. Manson, 4 Fbd. Rep* 267, contra.— ["Ed). �Motion to Eemand. �Loais B. Tatum, for plaihtiff. �Noble e Ornck, for defendant. �Trbat, D. J. The plaintiff, an Ohio corporation, brought suit in the state circuit court for less than $300, the defend- ants being citizens of Missouri. The defendants appeared (February 8th) and filed an answer and counter claim. The counter claim is based on an alleged contract in ■writ- ing, for the non-performance of which ' the defendants have Bustained damages (unliquidated) in the sum of $1,000, No written contract \^as filed, or profert thereof made. On the following day the defendants filed a petition for the removal of the cause to this court. Under the act of March S, 1875, the defendants, though citizens of Mis- souri, had a right to the removal, the plaintiff ^ being a ��� �
