HiBKVEÏ-t». I. M. Et. CO. '709 �parties to the litigation sedm to h&xe acted oa tHe assumption tHat the 'bill was' dismissed as to foreign eitîiens and subjects. VariouB othër orders were màde by the atate court, (which, however, it is not neeessary particularly to refer to,) allowing different parties to coiùe in wto are creditors oî the Illinois Midland Eailway Company, or of the othei* corûpanies. �On April 6, 1878, the Union Trust Company filed a peti- tion for the removal of the cause t'ô the federail court, alleg- ing it was the real party in interest as à^ainst the general creditors of the company, and thàt there was a controversjy between citizens of different states -which could he wholly determined as between them. �The petition alleged that the various parties before men- tioned, who had been made complainants by the several amended bills, and wlw were citizens of otker countries, had been dismissed from the suit, The state court, on the same day, (April 6, 1878,) made an order removing the cause to this court. The order recites that the court finds the allega- tions in the petition praying for a removal to be true, aiid ihat the petitioner was entitled to remove the cause under the act of congress; and recites, further, that ail parties to the cause were -willing and consented, having appeared in court for that purpose, to the prayer of the petition for the removal of the cause; and also recites that the petitioner presented a bond, as required by the act of congress, which was approved by the court. The cause w.is accordingly, upon this petition, by order of the court, removed to the federal court at that time, and that court, without objection, tOok jurisdiction of the cause, and another receiver was appointed by the federal court, different from the one who had been appointed by the state court, and he acted under the ordera of the federal court ; and indeed it may be said that the cir- cuit court of the United States appeared to have entire juris- diction and control of the cause, and the receiver operated the road under its direction from the time that it was re- moved, and has been doing so up to the present time. �Of course, under these circumstances, even if it were ad- mitted that the bond is irregular, or objectionable in form, it ����
