272 rSDEBAL BBPOBTEB. �NoEBis ». MiNEBAL PoiNT TuNNEL and otuers. �(Gireuit Court, 8. D. Nm York. April 23, 1881.) �1. Removal— MisTAKB m Petition. �A case is removable, under the act of 1875, when the petition set» forth the necessary facts, although the removal is erroneously prayed for under section 639 of the Revised Btatutes. �2. Bame— Act of 1875. �The act of 1875 is not repealed by the marginal reference to the same in section 639 of the second edition of the Kevised titatutes. — [Ed. �Motion to Eemand. �E. R. Mead, for plaintiff. �J. F. Harrison, iox defendants. �Blatchfoed, C. J. The only objection to the jurisdiction of this court herein is that the petition for removal made by the plaintiii states that he desires to remove the suit into this court in pursuance of section 639, subd. 3, of the Ee- vised Statutes of the United States, and that he did not file in the state court an affidavit as to prejudice or local in- fluence, as required by that subdivision. The prayer of the petition is that the suit may be removed "pursuant to the aforesaid act." The petition states facts which make ont a case for removal under the first clause of section 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 470.) The plaintiff was, at the time the suit was brought, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and the defendants were then — some of them — citizens of New York, and the rest citizens of Massachusetts, The mistake in the petition, by referring to the wrong stat- ute, is unimportant, when the facts set forth in it make a case for removal under the act of 1875.* �- The defendants contend that there is no existing statute, but section 639 of the Revised Statutes, under which a re- moval of a suit can take place ; that in the second edition of the Revised Statutes, published in 1878, under authority of the act of March 2, 1877, (19 St. at Large, 268,) there is in the margin, opposite section 639, a reference to the act of �*See upon this point Buckman v. liuckman, 1 Fed. Ref. 587. ��� �
