In re MOORE. 20? U, 8o T?2 C?I? Jcs?c? dis*ent/n?. wMch the plaintiff could ?ve brou?t o?y ? the Uni- ? S? Circ?t ?. ?e fi?t of mmov? ?ven ? the non-?ident defendant or defen? by the ?cond cl? of ? 2, mincing the cs?e from the sta? cou? ? the United S? ?cuit ?, ? subject ? the limi?tio? of that clause ?t it m?t ? a suit with? ?he ju?diction of such C?cuit ?, ?d t?t it m?t be removed ? the pro?r d?tfict, ?d therefore the ?t d? not ?uthofize him or them ? remove it ? the U?d S? ?c?t ? held in ? d?tfict wherein t? co? w? not ?ven j?ction of the suit removed, ? ?y other judiei? d?tfict in which the suit ? not ?nding, ? provided in ? 3. Plaintiff brought Ms suit in ? d?tfict wh?in the defendant co?d not be sued ? the Feder? cou? ?thin the me?g of the ?. H? v. Woo? Am? C?y, 1? Fed. Rep. 530. ?e pro?r district ?th? the meaning of the second cl? of the ?cond ?ction me? either of the d?tfic? m?e "pro?r d?$fic?" by the flint section of the ?t, ?d when the third ?ti? mqu? the ?tition ? ? "for the mmovsl of such suit in? ? C?cuit ?u? ? be held in the district where such s?t ? ?nd?g," it m?t ?ve b?n ?n?mpl?ted that the sui? wo?d ? ?nding in ? "pro?r d?tfict." It ? plain that the entire ?t ? not ? ? construed ? ?ng jur?diction by re,on of citize?Mp ? ? Circuit Court held in a State of which neither ?y ? a citizen, but, on the contr?, that it r?tfic? the j?ction ? the ?stfict in w?ch one of the p?i? r?id? ?t? the S? of which he ? ? citizen.
�
