Any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, under their authority, of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by law, which are brought in any State court, may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein to the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district.17 Any other suit of a

16 Rev. Stats., 629, Cl. 4; 25 U. S. Stats., 433. See Atkins vs. Disintegrating Co., 18 Wallace, 272; In re Louisville Underwriters, 134 U. S., 488; Smith vs. Lyon, 133 U. S., 315. If a suit be one to enforce a claim to land, it may be brought in the district where the land is situated, though neither party reside there. Single vs. Scott Paper Mfg. Co., 55 Fed. Rep., 553

17 Act of March 3, 1875, 18 U. S. Stats., 470, as amended by the Act of March 3, 1887; 24 U. S.

Stats., 552, as re-enacted by the Act of August 13, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats., 433. See Mexican National R. Co. vs. Davidson, 157 U. S., 201; Reed vs. Reed, 31 Fed. Rep., 183; Wilson vs. Smith, 66 Fed. Rep., 81; Kanouse vs. Martin, 15 Howard, 198; Stevens vs. Richardson, 9 Fed. Rep., 191; Gold Washing and W. Co. vs. Keyes, 96 U. S., 199; Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264; People vs. Rock Island & P. Ry. Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 753; Chappell vs. Waterworth, 156 civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by law, which are brought in any State court, may be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of that State.18 When in any suit brought in a State court, of a nature such that the Circuit Court might have jurisdiction over it, there is a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district.19 Where a suit is brought in any State court in which there is a controversy between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State, any defendant, being such citizen of another State, may remove such suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district, at any time before the trial thereof, when it shall be made to appear to said Circuit Court that from prejudice or local influence he will not be able to obtain justice in such State court, or in any other State court to which the said defendant may, under the laws of the State, have the right to remove said cause, on account of such prejudice or local influence, provided, that if it further appear that said suit can be fully and justly determined as to the other defendants in the State court, without being affected by such prejudice or local influence, and that no party to the suit will be prejudiced by a separation of the parties, said Circuit Court may direct the suit to be remanded, so far as relates to such other defendants, to the State court, to be proceeded with therein.20

U. S., 102; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. vs. State of Alabama, 155 U. S., 482; Clafflin vs. McDermott, 12 Fed. Rep., 375. 18 Clause 2 of Section 2 of Act of March 3, 1887, 24 U. S. Stats., 552, corrected August 13, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats., 443, amendatory to Clause 2 of Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875. See Western Union Tel. Co. vs. Brown, 32 Fed. Rep., 337; State vs. Tutty, 41 Fed. Rep., 753; State of Indiana vs. Allegheny Oil Co., 85 Fed. Rep., 870; Maloney vs. American Tobacco Co. 72 Fed. Rep., 801; Railway Co. vs. Whitton, 13 Wallace, 270; Boom Co. vs.

Patterson, 98 U. S., 403; Gaines vs. Fuentes, 92 U. S., 10; Shumway vs. Chicago & Iowa R. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep., 481; Bevian vs. Chetwood, 9 Fed. Rep., 678; Removal cases, 100 U. S., 457; Barney vs. Lathan, 103 U. S., 205; Sewing Machine Co.'s Case, 18 Wal-lace 553 l9 25 U. S. Stats., 433. See Western Union Telegraph Co. vs. Brown, 32 Fed. Rep., 337; Torrence vs. Shedd, 144 U. S., 527; Wilson vs. Oswego Townshil, 151 U. S., 56; City of Bellaire vs. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 156 U. S., 117.

Suits may also be removed from State courts to the circuit courts of the United States where the parties to the suit claim land, to the value of at least $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, under grants from different states; either plaintiff or defendant may remove a suit of this description, and the party removing cannot give evidence on the trial in the Circuit Court of any other title to the land than the one set up by him in his petition for removal.21 Either a civil suit or a criminal prosecution commenced in any State court for any cause whatever against any person who is denied or cannot enforce, in the judicial tribunals of the State or in the part of the State where such suit or prosecution is pending, any right secured to him by any law providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, or against any officer, civil or military, or any other person, for any arrest or imprisonment or other trespasses or wrongs, made or committed by virtue of or under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights as aforesaid, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law, may be removed for trial to the next term of the Circuit Court to be held in the district where the State court is situated.22 All suits brought in any State court against any revenue officer of the United States or any officer acting under registration laws may be removed to the Circuit Court.23

2025 U. S. Stats., 433. The prejudice act of 1867 was repealed by implication by the act of 1887-8. See as to such repeal, Fisk vs. Henaire, 142 U. S., 459; Hanrick vs. Hanrick, 153 U. S., 192. See as to prejudice and local influence, Neale vs. Foster, 31 Fed. Rep., 55; Amer. Bible Soc. vs. Grove, 101 U. S., 610; Amer. Bible Soc. vs. Price, 110 U. S., 61; Jefferson vs. Driver, 117 U. S., 272; Cambria Iron Co. vs. Ashbum, 118 U. S., 54. 31 Act of March 3, 1875, 3; as amended by Act of August 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats., 433. See Peyton vs. Bliss, 1 Wall., 170; Fed. Cas. No. 11,055; Town of Pawlet vs. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292; Thompson vs. Kendricks, 5 Haybe, 115.