Melville Fuller

“ If the facts were such as to warrant the inference that the plaintiff purposely brought the action for a smaller amount in order to prevent a removal, and afterwards secured the amendment, a different question would be presented.' Nothing is better settled than that, to enable us to take jurisdiction on the ground of the denial by a state court of a right claimed under a statute of the United States, the record must show that the right was specially set up or claimed at the proper time and in the proper way, and that the decision was against the right so set up or claimed. ”

“ Rep. 292. But the supreme court of the United States subsequently held, by a divided court, that corporations like the defendant, created and organized under the laws of the United States, were entitled to remove suits against them to the United States courts. Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1113. Under the circumstances, therefore, we are not warranted in concluding that the allowance of the amendment was an abuse of discretion. ”

“ If, on the other hand, the motives of the plaintiff could not be inquired into, or, if admitted, would not affect the result, as in most cases of remittitur, (Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694; Cable Co. v. O'Connor, 128 U.S. 394, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 112,) the defendant would simply suffer for want of comprehensiveness in the statute. ”