nornsoumn ~v. »-nxrrmws. 7
ually occurred, yoiir petitioner was acting in his oiiicial capacity, under and
by virtue of a certain writ of attachment issued out of the circuit court of
the United States in and for the Eastern district of Michigan, in a certain
, suit then instituted in said court, wherein the said Raphael Rothschild and
Charles Sittig were defendants, and Leopold Erstein and Marx Erstein weib
plaintius; that in the commission of the acts and grievances mentioned and .
set forth in said declaration, if such occurred, your petitioner, in so far as he
can be charged with being a party thereto, was acting solely in his capacity
as said marshal, and under and by virtue of the laws of the United States in
auch cases made and provided, and that the defense of your petitioner in said
cause distinctly involves, among other things, the construction of the laws
of the United States. " t
The state court found the bond offered with the petition sufficient,
out denied the right of the defendant to remove the cause. The defend-
ant thereupon caused copies of the papers in the cause, to be Bled in
this court, and the cause to be docketed. The plaintiffs now move to
remand it to the state court.
The sole ground on which the right of removal is claimed here is
that the suit is one of a civil nature where the matter in dispute, ex-
clusive of costs, exceeds the value of $500, "arising under the con.
stitution or laws of the United States." It is no objection to the right
of removal on this ground that it is invoked in behalf of the defend-
ant; for, as was decided in Railroad C0. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S.
135, 141, "cases arising under the laws of the United States are such `
as grow out of the legislation of congress, whether they constitute the
right or privilege or claim or protection or defense of the party, in
whole or in part, by whom they are asserted." If, however, we look ‘
onlyat the pleadings in the suit sought to be removed, and the is-
sues raised by them, it is plain that there is no case, within the mean-
ing of the act, arising under the laws of the United States. The
defendant is sued as an individual trespasser, and not for any act
alleged to have been done colors cjicii. To the declaration, setting
forth the trespass, he files a general demurrer. This presents an is-
sue of law as to the sufficiency of the declaration; and clearly no fed-
eral question is involved in that. The matter relied on, however, is
set up in the petition for removal; and that is claimed to constitute
part of the record, for the purpose of this motion, and to be suiiicient
to justify the removal. ·
The case of Gold Washing at Water Cc. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, was
very much like the present. That was a bill in equity to restrain
the defendants from proceedings alleged to constitute a nuisance, to
which there was a general demurrer. The cause was removed from
the state court to the circuit court of the United States, as a suit
"arising under the constitution or laws of the United States." Upon
the pleadings alone, as was said by the supreme court, it was clear '
the defendants had not brought themselves within the statute. The
complaint simply set forth the ownership by the complainant of his
property, and the acts of the defendants which it was claimed caused