presented in open court, eo instanti divested the state court of all jurisdiction. The proceedings thereafter were coram non judice. The refusal to make the transfer could not avert the force of the statute, when coupled with the request. The jurisdiction of the court was instantly swept away. The only power that remained was to perform the merely ministerial act of making the formal transfer. Railroad Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1262; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 432, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 799; Carson v. Hyatt, 118, U. S. 279, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep, 1050; Crehore v. Railway Co. 131 U. S. 240, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692.
While it was at first supposed that a state court could determine for itself the question of diverse citizenship, (Dunne v. Railroad Co. 27 N. W. Rep. 448, and cases cited,) it is now settled law that when a prima facie case for removal is presented the state court instantly loses jurisdiction; that it has no power to determine the fact of diverse citizenship; and that any action on its part will be without jurisdiction, even though the case is not in fact transferable, and the petition for removal is false. The record closes when the application for removal is made. The power of the state court is destroyed, and the jurisdiction of the federal court attaches at once; and the question of fact on which that jurisdiction ultimately depends must be determined in that court, and its decision on that point is binding on the state court. Railroad. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1262. The federal court either holds the case or remands it, as its determination of the question of diverse citizenship is in favor of or against its jurisdiction. It is singular that any other view was ever entertained. The supremacy of the laws of the United States might in this regard be utterly destroyed by the hostile action of the courts of a subordinate sovereignty, if the fact on which the operation of these laws to give the federal courts jurisdiction depended rested for its final determination on the decision of the tribunals of such subordinate sovereignty.
The fact that the plaintiff was appointed administrator in the territory of Dakota, and is now administrator in this state, does not alter the case. The question is one of personal citizenship. The individual can have no official citizenship. He is not, as
