209 U.S. Argument for Petitioner. 16 Kansas, 80; Robinson v. Walker, 45 Missouri, 120; Moulder v. Anderson, 63 Mo. App. 39; Latham v. Edgerton, 9 Cow. Fed. Rep. 649; Crane Co. v. G'uanica Centrale, 132 F?i. Rep. 713; Cella v. Brown, 144 Fed. Rep. 724; Midhell Co. v. Worth- ington, '140 Fed. Rep. 947; Steven.? v. N/c/w/s, 130 U.S. 230; U.S. 585; Merchants Co. v. Ins. Co., 151 U.S. 384; Railway v. Twitchell, 59 Fed. Rep. 727; Crasswell v. Belanger, 56 Fed. Rep. 529; MacNaughton v. Railway, 19 Fed. Rep. 881; In- diana v. Lake Erie &c. R. Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 2; Fr/sb/e v. Ckesa- peake &c. R. Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 1; So?hworth v. Reid, 36 Fed. Rep..451; Branson v. St. Croix Lumber Co., 35 Fed. Rcp. 634; Indiana v. Toileston Club, 53 Fed. Rep. i8; Wabash R. Co. v. Barbour, 73 Fed. Rep. 513; Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U.S. 201; Ayers v. Watso?, 113 U.S. 598; Mansfield &c. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379; Martin v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 151 U.S. 690; 18 Enc. Pt. & Pt. 369. The right of removal is determined by the facts as disclosed by the removal petition, and if the latter is defective in sub- stance (and, for stronger reason, it it affirmatively shows, as in the case at bar, that the cause is not removable), neither consent nor fa/lure to raise the issue of jurisdiction can impart Fed. Rep. 992; Yellow Aster Co. v. Crane Co., 150 Fed. Rep. 580; Goldberg Co. v. Ins. Co., 152 Fed. Rep. 8,34; In re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653; Cochran v. Montgomery County, 199 U.S. 260. If it were possible for a competent party to "waive the ques- tion of jurisdiction," such a rule could not apply to the case of an infant plaintiff, whose incapacity to w?ive any substan- tial right the courts should always protect.. Coal Co. v. Hays, Ency. Pl. & Pr., p. 613 and cases; Nagel' v. Schilling, 14 Mo. App. 576; Ingersoll'v. Mangain, 84 N.Y. 622; Carver v. Carver, 64 Indiana. 194; Afartin v. Starr,'7 Indiana, 224; Gray v. Palmer, 9 California, 616; Frazier v. Pankey, 1 Swan (Tenn.),
�
