’ ‘ nrzmn iv. ammo. r 51 .
of diferent states, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of
interest and costs, thesum or value aforesaid." As to removal of cases
from the state courts, section 2 of said act provides "that any suit of `
a civil nature, at law or in .equity,`of which the circuit courts of the ·
United States are given jurisdiction by the preceding section, and which
are now pending * * * in any state court, may be removed into
the circuit court of the United States for the proper district by the de- ·
fendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of the state." A
It will be seen that, under this statute, no cause can be removed from a
state court to the circuit court unless the circuit court would have had .
original jurisdiction of the controversy involved in the case. In this re-
spect it iis different from the act of the third of March, 1875, in which
this restriction did not exist; so that under that act a class of cases, it
had been decided by the courts, might be removed that could not have
been originally brought in the circuit court. This clause was, no doubt,
inserted to settle` definitely that question.
One of the questions, then, to be settled on this motion, is, do the
proceedings in the common plea  of Stark county, to contest the validity
of the will of Reed, constitute a " suit of- a civil nature, at common law
or in equity? " The case sought to be removed seems to be proceedings
under a special statute of the state of Ohio, and classed with special
remedies underthe statute, in which the whole proceedings are directed
by the statute, and substantially make the common pleas court an appellate
court, or an assistant to the probate court on the probate of wills and settle-
ment of estates. The probate courts of the counties have the exclusive j uris-
diction for the probate of wills. The probate therein generally is ew parte,
without notice to others interested; and, to provide an adversary hearing
of such probate, the statute provides that any person interested in a will
may, at any time after probate so made ex parte, and within two years,
' Hle a petition in the court of common pleas to contest the validity of
the will, and in that way review such probate. This proceeding in the
court of common pleas is but the continuance of the controversy made
in such contest, and in aid of the probate court inits exercise of probate
owers.
P The removal statute also provides that, in case of the proper removal
to the circuit court, "the case shall then proceed in the same manner as
T if it had been originally commenced in said circuit court," thereby sever-
ing a.ll connection between this court and the state court from which it
had been removed. Now, such proceedings in the common pleas are re-
quiredito be certified to the probate court, and the will recorded and ex-
ecuted in the probate court. This court, if it retained jurisdiction, has
no such connection with, or relation to, the probate court, as to authorize
it torequire the probate court to certify the original will and the proofs to y
this court for trial, or to certify its decision with the return of the original _
will and proof to the probate court after trial here, and no power to en-
force such orders. - . » . ‘
This court surely has no such common-law powers, and the necessary .
judicial machinery has not been furnished by any legislation of the