?9U. & A?g?nentforPe?one?. holding the Circuit Court, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by law, and that their decision upon the motion was in khe exercise of judicial judgment and discre- tion vested in ?hcm. The return, and as a part thereof, was accompanied. by a complete transcript of the record of the cause in the Circuit Court. Mr. William T. Thompson, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, and Mr. William B. Rose for petitioner: Where a Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdic- tion over a cause removed by defendant from a state court and refuses to remand it upon a proper motion, mandamus is plaintiff's remedy. The State of Nebraska is a party plaintiff on the record of the case commenced in the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and it is the real and necessary party plaintiff. It is not a citizen within the removal acts of Congress. The Circuit Court of the United States acquired no jurisdiction by removal and its refusal to remand was without authority of law and manda- mus requiring the United States district judges to remand the case to the state court is the remedy of the State of Nebraska. Ex parte Wisr?r, 203 U.S. 449. The present application is within the ru4e stated, and man- damus is the proper remedy. The Circuit Court of the United States was wholly without jurisdiction to proceed in the case as removed from the Supreme Court of Nebraska. Under the constitution of the State of Nebraska, as inter- preted by the Supreme Court thereof, that State may become a plaintiff and maintain in the Supreme Court of the State a suit in equity to promote the general welfare by protecting the public from oppressions, extortions or other injuries, though the State of Nebraska has no pecuniary or property interest in the suit. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 584; Constitution of Nebraska, Art. 6, � Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How. 504; State v. Commercial State Bank, 28 Nebraska, 682; State v. Exchange Bank o! Milligan, 34 Nebraska, 200; Burton v. Uniled States,
�
