EAEISEB V. ILLINOIS OBNT. B. 00. O �under consideration is concerned, be regarded as equivalent to that in the latter act — "a controversy between citizena of different states." �The meaning in both cases is that the controversy must be between citizens of different states when the suit is com- menced or brought. Jt follows that under the act of 1875, as well as under the previous law, a case cannot be removed from a state to a federal court, onjhe ground of citizenship of the parties, unless it appears from the record that at the time the suit was commenced the parties to it were citizena of different states; and, as this does not appear from the rec- ord in this case, the removal was unauthorized, and this court bas no jurisdietion. The plaintiff, anticipating this ruling, bas moved the court for leave to file an amended transcript. It does not appear whether this is for the pur- pose of amending the record of the state court so as to con- form to the statute, or with a view to showing, by a more complete transcript, that the record did in fact disclose the citizenship of the parties at the time of the petition for removal. If the latter is the purpose of the plaintiff, there can be no question as to the propriety of permitting the amendment, since it is without doubt his right to correct the transcript so that it will show aU that appeared of record in the state court when the order of removal was made ; but if the purpose is at this time to change the record of the state court soas to showthe facts necessary to authorize the removal, a question of great doubt must arise as to the right of the plaintiff, in this way and at this time, to bring his case within our jurisdietion. �It is clear that, assuming that we have before us the com- plete record up to the present moment, the cause bas not been removed. It bas remained, in contemplation of law, pending in the state court. That court might have proceeded to final judgment, notwithstanding the proceeding by which a removal has been attempted. The order of the state court purporting to remove the cause did not divest that court of jurisdietion any more than a refusai to make such an order in a case coming within the law would deprive the federal ��� �
