The laws creating the right of removal to federal circuit court of certain causes from state courts where the petitioner(s) may not receive proper protection of their rights were enacted at 18 Stat. 470 (Vol. 3), on March 3, 1875, and at 24 Stat. 552, on Mar. 3, 1887. Also provided in proper conditions was the removal to federal district courts. These laws are contained in the scanned images below.
18 Statutes At Large 470-473:
24 Statutes At Large 552-555:
(Those interested are invited to transcribe these pages for common use.)
Please read the case annotations below which shed light on this issue.
My conclusions:
1) A case in a state court (created by the state) can only be removed to the proper "circuit court of the district which embraces territorially the state court." (Hess v Reynold) Because these courts no longer exist, as the laws authorizing these circuit courts have been repealed, there is no court to which to remove an action from a state court.
2) A case involving a federally created "state" court may be removed to a district court of the United States. (Barnette v Wells Fargo Nevada Nat. Bank) But as a United States District Court is not equivalent to a District Court of the United States, removals are improper if taken to a USDC.
3) A case in law is not removable, as federal courts can only hear equity.
Section § 25 of the collection of annotations titled "Removal of Causes" in the U. S. Supreme Court Digest, below, comprise "III. TO WHAT COURT" in its entirety; no newer citations are in the pocket part (1989).
11B U. S. Supreme Court Digest (1987), Removal of Causes, III. TO WHAT COURT
§ 25 Generally.
Cross References
Legal action not removable to equity court, see infra, § 142.
The removal, in all cases, is into the circuit court of the district which embraces territorially the state court in which the suit is pending at the time of the removal, without regard to the place where it originated. Hess v Reynold, 113 US 73, 5 S Ct 377, 28 L Ed 927
The words "proper district" in §28 of the federal Judicial Code (USC title 28, §71), which provides for the removal of suits from state courts into the district court of the proper district, mean the district which includes the county or place where the suit is pending at the time of removal. General Invest. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 260 US 261, 43 S Ct 106, 67 L Ed 244
A corporation sued in the courts of a state of which neither it nor plaintiff is a resident may remove the case into the Federal district court of that state, under §§ 28 and 29 of the Judicial Code (USC title 28, §§ 71, 72) permitting any suit of a civil nature of which the district courts have jurisdiction to be removed into the district court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant, being a nonresident of the state, the proper district being defined to be that in which the county is situated from which the removal is made. Lee v Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 260 US 653, 43 S Ct 230, 67 L Ed 443
A suit brought in a state court to recover land and funds in charge of a court created by laws of Congress and deriving its powers and authority from those laws may be removed to a district court of the United States for trial under § 28 of the Judicial Code, as supplemented by the Amendment of § 33 of the Act of August 23, 1916, chap 399 (39 Stat at L 532, USC title 28, § 76). (Brandeis and Sabford, JJ., dissented from this holding.) Barnette v Wells Fargo Nevada Nat. Bank, 279 US 438, 46 S Ct 326, 70 L Ed 669
Distinguished in Gay v Ruff, 292 US 25, 78 L Ed 1099, 54 S Ct 608, 92 ALR 970, holding action against receiver appointed for railroad by Federal court, for recovery of damages for personal injuries, not removable.
The general venue statute in 28 USC § 1391 has no application to actions removed from a state court to a federal district court. The venue of removed actions is governed by 28 USC § 1441(a), providing for removal to "the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." Polizzi v Cowles Magazines, Inc. 345 US 663, 73 S Ct 900, 97 L Ed 1331
Whether a foreign corporation was doing business in the district of suit within the meaning of 28 USC § 1391(c), permitting a corporation to be sued in the district in which it is doing business, is irrelevant in determining whether a district court has jurisdiction over an action for libel against the corporation brought in a state court and removed to a federal district court. Polizzi v Cowles Magazines, Inc. 345 US 663, 73 S Ct 900, 97 L Ed 1331
From: 11B U.S. Digest, Removal of Causes, § 142
"A federal court of equity cannot entertain a purely legal action transferred from the state court, on the mere ground that if it were not done, the plaintiff would have to commence a new proceeding." Thompson v Central Ohio R. Co. 6 Wall 134, 18 L Ed 765.
"A federal court has no jurisdiction to enter a judgment in a case removed without right from a state court where the federal court could not have original jurisdiction of the suit even in the posture it had at the time of judgment." American Fire & Casualty Co. v Finn, 341 US 6, 71 S Ct 534, 19 ALR2d 738, 95 L Ed 702.