888 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The view taken of the question by Judge. Woods and Tudge Blatchford, in the cases cited, (3 Woods, 413 ; 16 Blatchf . 309 ; and 9 Eep. 569,) has also been adopted bj the supreme court of Georgia in Jackson v. The Mut. Ins. Co. 60 Ga. 423, and by the supreme court commission of Chio in Phœmx Life Ins. Co. V. Saettel, 1 Cent. L. Jour. 398. �I hold, therefore, upon what I regard the weight of aûthor» ity, and as a correct interpretation of the act of 1875, inde- pendent of authority, that the right of removal under that act is not dependent upon citizenship when the suit was commenced in the state court, but that if the required citi- zenship exists at the time the petition for removal is filed in the state court, that is sufficient. �Motion to remai;id overruled. �IToTS. See Beede v. Cheeney, vnfra. ���Beede v. Gheenet and others. �(Circuit Oov/rt, D. Minnesota. December, 1880.) �L Removal — Bond Approved by Btatb Oottrt. �In a case of removal the jurisdlction of the federal court does not depend upon the form or substance of the bond approved by the state court. 1 Samk— When Khquisite Citizenship Mcst Exist. �A cause cannot be removed under the act of 1795, uniess the re- quired citizenship existed, not only when the petition for removal was aled, but also at the time when the action was begun in the state court. �1. Same— 8ame. �A petition for removal stated that the defendants an residents of another state. Hdd, that the cause must be remanded, upon the ground that the petition was in the present tense. — f £o. �Motion to Eemand. �M. 0. lÀttle, for plaintiff. �A. Oppenheim and W. P. Warner, for defendant. �MoGbabt, g. J. In this case there is a motion to remand on the ground that the bond accepted by the state court to secure the filing of the transcript in this court, and the payment of ����
