54 Furman. Rnroarmn. l __
Oregon, and that on account of prejudice and local influence he could not
· obtain justice in the state court; in support of which latter statement he tiled
an atiidavit, as required by subdivision 8 of section 639 of the Revised Stat-
utes. On April 29th, and after the case had been put at issue by a replication
to the defendant’s answer, and the same had been referred to_the master to
take thetestimony, and find the facts and conclusions of law arising thereon,
and after thetestimony was closed, and the case was awaiting the conven-
ience of the· master for final argument before him, the defen ants applied.
under section 2 of the act of 18S7,.(24 St. 553,)to examine into the truth ot said
adidavit,-alleging that the same is untrue; on which issue ailidavits were nled
V ·by the parties. Held, (1) that the proceeding authorized by the act of 1887,
whereby this court is called upon to pass on the fitness of a state judge to try
a particular case, is indelicate and inexpedient; (2) the application is too late,
_not havingbeen made before the trial, or hearing commenced before the
master; and (3) the cause was removable on the ground of the diverse citizen-
ship of the parties, irrespective of the question of prejudice and local 1ntlu—
gpce, and therefore the application to remand is denied, without passing on
esame.
(Syllabus by the Oourt.) p ,
Suit in Equity to set aside Fraudulent Conveyances. ` Application tow
remand. A ' ~ ‘
O. E. S. Wood, for plaintiff. r " A _
Earl O. Bronwagh, for defendants. A ‘
Dnanr, J. This suit was commenced in the circuit court of the state
for Linn county on July 1, 1886; and on July 6th was removed, on the
petition of the plaintiff, to this court.` It appears from the complaint
that the suit is brought to set aside certain conveyances of real property
_ situatein said county, and made by the defendant Foster, when in fail- ·
ing circumstances, to the defendants`Pearce and John A_. and William
» Crawford, of said county, and subject the same to the payment of two
— certain judgments, equal in value to $15,966, with interest from March
8, 1886, of which the plaintiff is, for a valuable consideration, the as-
signee of certain citizens of Oregon.
_ The petition for removal states that the plaintiff is a citizen and resi~
`_ dent of Illinois, and the defendants are citizens of Oregon, and that the
controversy in said suit is between citizens of different states; that the
plaintiff also desires to remove said suit under subdivision 3 of section
_ 639 of the Revised Statutes, and has filed the aflidavit required for that
purpose. The afiidavit is made by the plaintifl"s attorney, and states
that the affiant and the plaintiff " have reason to believe, and do believe,
that, from prejudice and local influence," the latter "wi1l not be able to
obtain justice in said state court." , I   "
On August 21st the defendants answered, and on September 10th the
cause was put at issue by the filing of a replication thereto; and on Oc-
tober 7th the case was referred to a master to take the testimony therein,
r and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon. The tes-
timony has longbeen closed, and ,the case is awaiting the convenience
of the master for final argument before him. J. ~ — ·t·r ., .
y0u April 29th the defendants made an application- under section 2 of ‘
the act of March 3, 1887, (24 St. § 55,3,),to examine into the truth and
grounds of said affidavit, alleging therein that ··the same was untrue, and