Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/468

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

456 FEDEEAL REPOBTER. �eaid iudgment and levied upon the only property of said Schwed & Newhouse within the state of Missouri, to-wit, a stock of watches and jewelry, and that attachments in favor of plaintiffs have been levied upon the same property. After the uling of the bill in the state court, and after ail the defend- ants had appeared, a motion for a temporary injunction to restrain the execution of said judgment -was heard by that court, and an injunction allowed to remain in force until a final hearing of the cause. Afterwards the cause was removed to this court. The defendants here move to dissolve the injunction granted by the state court upon grounds which will now be considered. �1. It is said that the bill is not verified according to law and the practice of courts of chancery. It is to be presumed that ail questions relating to the form and sufficieney of the bill, and of the verification thereof, were considered and decided by the state court upon the hearing before that tribunal of the motion for an injunction, and that the affidavit was held to be good and sufficient under the state law. Whether that ruling was correct or not I will not inquire, because this court is not called upon to reView the orders and ruling made by the state court in the progress of the cause before the removal. In the case of Dungan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810, the supreme court, by Waite, G. J., laid down the rule upon this subject as follows: "The transfer of the suit from the state court to the circuit court did not vacate what had been done in the state court previous to the removal. The circuit court, when a transfer is effected, takes the case in the con- dition it was when the state court was deprived of its juris- diction. The circuit court bas no more power over what was done before the removal than the state court would have had if the suit had remained there. It takes the case up where the state court left it off." In view of this authority, I am disposed to consider the question of the sufficieney of the verification of the bill as disposed of by the action of the state court. No doubt this court may, upon proper showing, in a case removed, vacate or modify an injunction allowed in the case by the state court, and before removal; but such ��� �