494 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for Respondent. 209 U.S. 75; Clark v. Thompson, 47 Illinois, 25; Bon?J/v. Holt, 89 nli- nois, 72; D/ck/zon v. D/ck/son, 124 Illinois, 483; F/tch v. Cor- nell, 1 Sawy. (U.S.) 157;.C-reenman v. Harvey, 53 Illinois, 386. The .nile in Missout'i on this eubject is unquestionable. Hen? Missouri, 537; ,Shaw v. Gregoire, 41 Missouri, 407; Ra//road v. Campbell, Nelson & Co., 62 Missouri, 585; Campbell v. Ladede Missouri, 165; Boaart v. B?jart, 138 Missouri, 419; Wright v. His/c, f93 Missouri, 130; McMurtry v. Fairly, 194 Missouri, 502; $. C., 91 $. W. Rep. 90. Mr. Harold R. $r,u?l,.with whom Mr. Harvey L. Chrst/e and Mr. P. Taylor Bryan were on the brief, for respondent: ?Mandamns will not serve as a writ of error to review an exercise of judi?al discretion by the United States Circuit Court in determining that a cause should not be remanded to the state court, unless the Circuit Court of the United States has abused its 'discretion. In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323 ?1906); Ex paste Hoard, 105 U. S..578; Taylor's Jurisdiction and Pro- cedure in the U.S. Sup. Ct. �6. ' Where plaintiff and defend?.t are citizens of different 8tates and are non-residents of the State and district in which a su?t is brought in the state court and the amount involged is over $2,000] the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Court attaches on removal thereto by defendant if a voluntary general appearance is made therein by plaintiff without ob- jection by him that he is not a resident of the district. Whe/an v. New Yo?k &c. R. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 858; Gordo? v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97; Po//ard eta/. v. Dwight eta/., 4 Craneh, 421; Grade v. Pa/mer, 8 Wheat. 699; To/amt v. $pro/jue, 12 Pet. 200; Ez parte $cho//enbe?er, 96 U.S. 369; Claflin v. In?. Co., 110 U.S. 81, 88; First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U.S. 14!; MeCorm/ck Co. v. Walthers, 134 U.S. 41; St. Louis &c. Ry. v. McBride, U.S. 159; C?ntral Truzt Co. v. McGeorg�, 151 U.S. 129; Mar.
�
