COOKE V. SELIGMAN. / 267 �is made to appear to the satisfaction of thia court # • * * * and that the controversy therein is wholly between an ^lien and citizen and subject of the united kingdom of Great BritRin and Ireland, and citizens of different states of the United States of America— that is to say, between the above-named plaintiff, who is a citizen and subjeci; of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the above-named defendants and petitioners, who are citizens of different states of the United States of America ; * * # and it is further declared and ordered that this court doth accept the said petition and bond somade and filed as afore- said, and that the suit be removed for trial into the next circuit court^Cf the United States, to be held in the southern district of New York, and that this court proceed no further therein, and that all proceedings in this court in the said cause be and the same arc hereby sta3'ed." �1. It is contended that section 8 of the act of March 3, 1876, (18 St. at Large, 471,) provides only that a "party" "may make and aie a petition, " and does net provide that an attor- ney may ; and that if an attorney in f act may, the fact of bis attorneyship and its scope must be shown to the state court. The order of the state court states that the petition was duly made and filed by the petitioners named, and that such petitioners appear by Mr. McGullough, as their counsel, and move for the order which the court makes. In Myerv. Congtruc- tion Co., recently decided by the supreme court of the United States, 100 U. S. 457, the petition for removal stated in the body of it that it was made by the two defendants, the petitioners, (naming them.) The petition was uot signed or Bworn to, but it was filed with the clerk. The court said: �" The petition was not signed. No objection was made on this account in the state court, land it came too late in the circuit court. If it had been made in the state court, the defect, if in fact there was one, wouM no doubt have been cured at once by the signature ofcoungel. The petUion was in writing. On its face it purported to be the petition of Meyer and Denison, and it was in fact the petition of Uenison. This the court knew, because it was actually pregented by the counsel of Denison, and was accompanied by a bond purporting also to be signed in the name of Meyer and Denison. In short, everything in the whp^e proceeding showed that it was in fact What, under the circumstances, it purported to be, — the appli- cation of Denison, made in good faith, for the removal of the cause." �These views cover the objection made in the present case. Although the plaintiff does not seem to have had prior notice of the application to the state court for the removal, the con- tents of the petition and bond, and the action of the petition- ��� �
