2 FEDERAL REPORTER. »
The homestead company claimed that it was entitled to recover back
the sums by it paid to discharge the taxes on the realty, as such pay-
ment inured to the beneut of Mrs. Litchheld, and it assigned this
claim and all rights under it to E. R. Goodnow, who thereupon in-
stituted this proceeding in equity, praying, among other things, that
` the amount advanced inypayxnents ofrtaxes should be declared an
equitable lien on the realty? Jani1ary’19, 1877, Grace H. Litch-
field tiled an answer to the merits of the bill, and on April 8, 1879,
filed a petition iieréa removal. of wthe ·cause-1to1 the United States
court. No action was taken thereon in the state court, nor did
Mrs. Litchfield file a transcriptof the record in the federal court.
June 29, 1880, Mrs. Litchfield Bled an amendment to her answer
jn¥§the_state icourt, add DQecembe»rQ14,; 1880, /·re procured an ordervaie-
'qiuring complainant to give security Toficosts ini the state court.
In October, 1881, Mrs. Litchheld died, and B. O. Grayson, a citizen
of Iowa, was appointed her administrator, and on September 14,
1882, he was substituted as defendant in place of Mrs. Litchfield,
and on October 2,1882, he fileda petition forlremoval of the cause
to this court, under clause 3 of section 689 of the Revised Statutes,
averring therein that the- assignment ofthe cause of action by the
. homestead companyto complainant was colorable only, and thatthe
company remained the realvipartylin interest. The state court re-
fused to grant the order of removal, and Grayson procured a tran-
script of the record, and filed the same in this court, whereupon com-
plainant moved toremand the cause.
M. D. O’Ommell and Gc0.,Oranc, for complainant. ,
C. H. Gatch, for Grayson, administrator. ..
Smms, J. 1. The record shows that Grace H. Litchfield never
invoked the action of the state court upon the petition for removal
filed during her life—time. She simply tiled it, and then ignored its
` existence. She took no steps to bring a transcript of the record into
the United States court. She appeared in the state court and asked
and obtained leave to amend the pleadings, and also demanded se-
curity for costs in that court. In other words, up to the time of her
death, which was over two years after the date of the {iling of the pe-
tition for removal, she fully recognized the jurisdiction of the state
court, without protest, and without invoking the action of the state
court upon the petition for removal. The facts do not present a case
wherein a party having properly asked a removal, which is refused
by the state court, then underiprotest continues to defend his rights
in the state tribunal.