HENDECKER V. BOSENBAUM. 99 �had been set aside and a new trial granted. The court refers to the difference in language between the act of 1866 and the act of 1867, and says that if that difference be "material it is fair to presume that the change was deliber- ately madeto obviate doubta that might possibly have arisen under the former act, and to make the latter more eompre- hensive." This decision was made at the October term, 1873. The Eevised Statutes were enacted June 22, 1874, changing the words, "final hearing or trial" to "trial or final hearing," as in the act of 1866, and then came the act of 1875, It indicates a clear intention to narrow the latitude allowed under the previous statutes, and it is entirely clear that it does not allow this cause to be removed. The words "final trial" are no longer used, nor the word "tried" alone ; but the words "first tried," and in connection with those words the word "trial," in the sense of "first trial." This was the view held by Judge Swing in Young y. Andes Ins. Co. 3 Cent. Law Jour. 719. The words in the act of 1875 mean, in regard to suits then pending, the first trial after the right of removal attaches, subsequently to the passage of the act. Hoadley v. San Francisco, 3 Sawy. 553, 555. The case of Bible Society v. Grove, 101 U. S. 610, is, so far as it goes, an authority against the .removal in this case. There a suit was pending when the act of 1875 was passed. There was a trial of it thereafter at a term, and the jury disagreed. The case was continued at that term, and again at a subsequent term. After the latter term had passed the defendants took steps to remove the cause. The supreme court held that the proper construction of section 3 of the act of 1875, in regard to suits pending when the act was passed, is that the petition musl; be filed at the first term of the court after the passage of the act at which the cause could be tried, and that the removal in the case before it was too late. The motion to remand is granted, with costs to be taxed. ��� �
