20? U. & A?m?n? fo? Appellees. party ?n 'interest will be. aligned on the part of the complain- How. 9; Maryland, use o! Mar/dey v. ?Ba/dw/n, 112 U.S. 490; ?t?a?t v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 168 U.S. 445. Rule 94 does not apply to actions removed from a state Fed. Rep. 909; E?a? v. Un. Pac. R?I. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 497. See also City o! Chicago v. Camorson, 22 Ill. App. 91, 102. The Circuit Court had no original jurisdiction of the case and could ?ot acquire juriediction. by removal. Since the acts of 1887 and 1888, it is very clear that the in- tent is to confine the right of removal' to cases ori'ginally cog- nizable ?u the Circuit Court? of the United States. See M?r/- can Nationa/ R?/. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U.S. 201, and this differentiates this case from those cited in the opinion below, in which were involved �1 and 12 of the act of 1789. The Circuit Court being wholly without jurisdicti �ould have remanded the ca?e to the state court. Detro/t v. Dean, 106 U.S. 537. Mr. J?dius F. Workurn for appellees: In--much as this appeal is taken direct from the Circuit Court to this court, and the question of the former court's jurisdiction is certified up, this court can consider only whether the Circuit Court as a Federal court had jurisdiction, and not whether as a court of equity it should have sustained or over- ruled the demurrers.' CMcago v. M///s, 204 U.S. 321, 326; . Louizwil? Trust Co. v. K?tt, 191 U.S. 225, 233, 234; Hennessy v. R?chardson Dru 9 Co., 189 U.S. 25, 33; Mexican Central R. R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U.S. 429, 432; Bl?]the v. Hinck/ey, 173 U.S. 501; United Sta?s v. R?/?r, 163 U.S. 132, 139; Smith v. McKay, 161 U.S. 355; Un?t?l States v. John, 155 U.S. 109, 113; ?chunk v. Moline, 147 U.S. 500, 507; McLish v. 14,1 U.S. 661; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 459. The only question that is open for diseuss?or?, therefore, is whether the case involves a controversy between citizens of
�
