?96 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. 209 U.S. into the Circuit Court of the United States, and that upon the failure of the United States Circuit Court to remand the case to the state court 'in which it ;;'as originally brought mandamns from this court is an appropriate remedy. But in that case the plaintiff never consented to accept the jurisdic- tion of the United States court, while in this case it is con- tended that both parties did so consent, and that therefore the decision in that case is not controlling. This brings up two questions, first, whether both parties did consent to accept the jurisdiction of the United States court; and, second, if they did, what effect such consent had upon the jurisdiction of the United States court. That the defendant consented to accept the jurisdiction of the United States court is obvious. It filed a petition for re- moval from the State to the United States court. No clearer expression of its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the latter court could be had. After the removal the plaintiff, instead of challenging the jurisdiction of the United States court by a motion to remand, filed an amended petition in that court, signed a stipulation giving time to the defendant to answer; and then both parties entered into successive stipulations for a continuance of the trial in that court. Thereby the plaintiff consented to accept the jurisdiction of the United States court, and was willing that his controversy with the defendant should be settled by a trial in that court. The mere filing of an amended petition was an appeal to that court for a trial upon the facts av6rred by him as they might be controverted by the defendant. And this, as we have seen, was followed by repeated recognitions of the jurisdiction of that court. That a next friend may ?lect the tribunal in which the suit shall be brought is clear. While he may do nothing prejudicial to the substantial rights of the minor, yet the mere selection of one out of many tribunals having jurisdiction cannot be considered as an act to the latter's prejudice. Certainly the election to accept the jurisdiction of a court of the United States is not an act prejudicial to substantial rights. In Kings-
�
