13 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and ap.y of the facts therein contained may be disproved, an4 the court shallhear the proofs and allegations of the parties; and if satisfied that the public interests require the crossing to be made, and the lands, etc., to be taken are necessary for the purpose, it shall make an order appointing three com- missioners to ascertain the amount to bepaidby the petition- ing corporation to persons interested. An appeal is allowed from this appraisement of the commissionors, to be prosecuted in the court where their report is filed, and it is to be sub- mitted to a jury to re-assess the damages awarded, etc. Whether the proceeding, as shown by the record presented, is essentially political in its character and not judicial, and ■whether it is a suit within the meaning of the second section of the rernoval act of 1875, it is not necessary at this time to determine. AU parties appear to agree that it is a suit or proceeding which can be removed from the state court, and I shall not on this application oonsider the question. �The only point to be decided is, has the federal court at this time jurisdiction soras to proceed with the matter? I am inclined to the opinion that on filing the petition in the state court, making a proper case for removal, and executing and filing the bond required, Jurisdiction attaches in the cir- cuit court, and when at any timç it is known by the federal court that such steps have been taken in the state court for rernoval, either by a copy of the record being filed or entered therein before the time required by the statute, many inci- dental proceedings may be taken, and provisional remedies, as attachments, etc., may be granted on motion, as could be done after the commencement of suit hy original process and appearance of the defendant; but the cause cannot proceed until the limited time has expired and the transcript entered. Such interpretation of the removal acts has support in the opinion of the supreme court of the United States when con- struing section 641 of the Eevised Statutes, involved in the case of Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 316. There is a declara- tion in that section similar to the one in the act of 1875 that "upon filing of the petition (no bond being required) ail fur- ther proceedings in the state court shall caase. * * * " The langnaj'e of the act of 1875 is: "The state court shall ����
