IN RE BECBIVEBSHIP OP 10 WA & MINN. CONST. 00. 801 �after brought in any state court," etc., may beremoved. The Bole question here is whetber the mere filing of a petition under the state practice in a court of the state, without the issuing or service of notice or process of any kind, constitutes a suit within the meaning of the act. I am clearly of the opinion that it does not. Upon general prineiples I should say with- out hesitation that process is essential to the institution of a suit. In the very nature of the case it must be necessary to bring the party respondent into court before any step can be taken to change the forum, or for any other purpose affecting his right. �The reasons for this rule are too manifest to require statement here. But it is also clear that the "suit" must exiet in the state court according to the state law before it is a suit removable under the act of congress. It must be a suit in which a judgment or decree could be rendered in that court, or some action taken aflfecting the rights of par- ties. In other words, it must be a suit commenced in the state court within the meaning of the state law. How, then, are suits to be commenced under that law? By section 2599 of the Code of lowa, 1873, it is provided that "actions in a court of record shall be commenced by serving the defendant with a notice, signed by the plaintiff or his attorney, inform- ing the defendant of the name of the plaintiff ; and that, on or before a date therein named, a petition will be flled, " etc. The term "action," under the statute of lowa, is identical with the word "suit" in the act of congress. This step, or some other equivalent to it, must be taken before a suit is pending for the purposes of the removal act, unless, indeed, service be waived by a voluntary appearance. �The motion to romand is sustained. y,6,no.8— 51 ��� �
