oooKB V. sELiaiiAjr. 269 �etc., rejecting the words "as they are" as surplusage. Then there is the averaient of the petition that the controversy is "between f oreign citizens, or subjects and citizens of different states of the United States," taken in connection with the above-cited averments in the complaint and the declaration of the state court, in the order, as to the citizenship of the defendants, which must be held to refer to their personal citizenship, showing the interpretation given by the state court to the averments of the petition, and the fa'ct that the state court surrendered its jurisdiction. The state court could not properly infer, and did not infer, nor can thisfcourt infer, that as persons James M. 'Brown and Howard' iPotter were not citizens of New York. �3. The want of acknowledgment ci: proof of , tTEie execution of the bond was a matter of.practice for the state court to pass upbn, and it will not bereviewed by this court after the st^te court lias accepted the fond'. J" ' ' *. "' ' ' �"4. It is objected that the condition of the l?ond"fces not provide for the defendants appearing in this court and' enter- ing special,, bail iii' the suit, 'if' Speicial"b9,ii was (jriginally requisite therein. , . The clav^se in; the copdition, proviijipg that the defendant shall "do or'oause to'be done such othenanid appropriate'acts," etO;;' is"a' iuflB&ient Compliau'ce '-with auy requireraent,,in.;8ectioin,i39f the act of .l'8^5I'th^{, tiie bond shall be oae for appearing in the federal court. �The iuotioii to remandthe^ cause to tho state court is denied. �Note. See in relation ioreMovalljoinda, Van AIlen V. S. CJ». $ Fsd. Bbp. 545, iand iTwc^v. ii. Cb. M. 707. - ��� �
