Other principles, it seems to me, necessitate this conclusion. Senator Aiken, Chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the bill, its floor manager and the senior Senate conferee, recorded his view in a statement published after the Congress adjourned.

"With respect to claims by the Corporation, the 4-year period of limitations will not begin to run on claims of the Delaware Corporation transferred to the Federal Corporation until June 30, 1948, the effective date of the new charter." 94 Cong. Rec. A4409.

The precedents in this Court on the interpretation of statutes establishing limitations by the definition of "accrued" without exception give the word prospective meaning. See, e. g., United States v. St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co., 270 U. S. 1; Fullerton-Krueger Co. v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 266 U. S. 435; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596; Lewis v. Lewis, 7 How. 776.

In the light of these purposes and precedents, viewed in the setting of damage to and pilferage of stored crops, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. STUDE ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 209. Argued December 2-3, 1953.-Decided January 18, 1954.

An administrative condemnation proceeding instituted by petitioner under an Iowa statute resulted in a commission's award of $23,000 damages to the landowner. The statute provides for an appeal from the commission's award to a state court. Petitioner filed a complaint in the Federal District Court, alleging diversity of citizenship, and praying that the damages for the taking of the land be fixed at not more than $10,000. Petitioner also filed an appeal in the state court, where, as required by Iowa law, the case was docketed with the landowner as plaintiff and the petitioner as defendant. Thereafter petitioner filed a petition to remove the state court proceeding to the federal court. Respondents filed in the Federal District Court a motion to dismiss the complaint filed therein and a motion to remand the case removed from the state court. Held:

1. The case removed from the state court was properly ordered remanded to that court. Pp. 578–580.

(a) In the circumstances of this case, an order denying a motion to remand is reviewed, although the order would not be appealable if it stood alone. P. 578.

(b) Within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (a), petitioner was plaintiff and not "defendant" in the state court proceeding, and therefore was not authorized to remove that proceeding to the Federal District Court. Pp. 578–580.

(c) For the purpose of removal, the federal law determines who is plaintiff and who is defendant; and the procedural provisions of the state law are not controlling. P. 580.

2. The original complaint in the Federal District Court was properly dismissed. Pp. 580-582.

(a) Petitioner's complaint in the Federal District Court was an attempt to have that court review the state proceedings on appeal. Iowa law does not purport to authorize such an appeal, Congress has provided none by statute, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make no such provision. Pp. 580–582.

574

Opinion of the Court.

(b) The complaint in the Federal District Court did not invoke the jurisdiction of that court in an eminent domain proceeding. P. 582.

(c) The question whether petitioner could proceed by way of an original action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa is not here presented or decided. P. 582. 204 F.2d 116, 954, affirmed.

Alden B. Howland and B. A. Webster, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. Mr. Howland also filed a brief for petitioner.

Raymond A. Smith and Harold W. Kauffman argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief were Daniel J. Gross, Philip J. Willson and John M. Peters.

MR. JUSTICE MINTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, owns and operates its railroad through Pottawattamie County, Iowa. It was authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to improve its line of railway in that county and by the Iowa State Commerce Commission to acquire by condemnation any land necessary for the improvement.

On January 18, 1952, pursuant to the Iowa Code,' the petitioner filed with the sheriff of the county its application to condemn certain lands in the county owned by respondent Stude. The sheriff appointed a commission

1"471.6 Railways. Any railway, incorporated under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof, may acquire by condemnation or otherwise so much real estate as may be necessary for the location, construction, and convenient use of its railway. . . .

"472.3 Application for condemnation. Such proceedings shall be instituted by a written application filed with the sheriff of the county in which the land sought to be condemned is located. . . .

"472.4 Commission to assess damages. The sheriff shall thereupon, except as otherwise provided, appoint six resident freeholders of his

Opinion of the Court.

346 U.S.

of six resident freeholders to assess damages. Notice was given by the sheriff to the respondent owner and others interested in the land, and an award of damages in the sum of $23,888.60 was allowed to the owner and $1,000 to the tenant. The amount of the assessment was paid by the petitioner to the sheriff and the petitioner took possession of the land. Such appraisal became final unless appealed from.

On March 6, 1952, the petitioner filed with the sheriff of the county a notice of appeal from the commission's award. The Iowa Code provides for appeal as follows:

"472.18 Appeal. Any party interested may, within thirty days after the assessment is made, appeal therefrom to the district court, by giving the adverse party, his agent or attorney, and the sheriff, written notice that such appeal has been taken.

"472.21 Appeals how docketed and tried. The appeal shall be docketed in the name of the owner of the land, or of the party otherwise interested and appealing, as plaintiff, and in the name of the applicant for condemnation as defendant, and be tried as in an action by ordinary proceedings." Code of Iowa, 1950.

county, none of whom shall be interested in the same or a like question, who shall constitute a commission to assess the damages to all real estate desired by the applicant and located in the county." Code of Iowa, 1950.

2 "472.25 Right to take possession of lands. Upon the filing of the commissioners' report with the sheriff, the applicant may deposit with the sheriff the amount assessed in favor of a claimant, and thereupon the applicant shall, except as otherwise provided, have the right to take possession of the land condemned and proceed with the improvement. No appeal from said assessment shall affect such right, except as otherwise provided." Code of Iowa, 1950.

574

Opinion of the Court.

The petitioner then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the respondents in which it alleged diversity of citizenship, jurisdictional amount, authority to make improvements and to condemn therefor, together with a description of the land and that respondent Stude was the owner, and that the assessment proceedings had been instituted in the sheriff's office, resulting in the assessment of damages of $23,888.60, which was alleged to be excessive, and that appeal was taken by notice duly given. This notice was referred to as Exhibit A to the complaint, which exhibit recited that the appeal was taken to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, and a transcript of the sheriff's proceeding was filed in that court. The prayer was that the damages for the taking of the land be fixed at not more than $10,000. On this complaint, a summons was issued and served upon the respondents.

The petitioner also filed an appeal from this assessment in the state court, the District Court for Pottawattamie County. The case was docketed there with the landowner as the plaintiff and the petitioner-condemnor as defendant, as required by the Iowa Code. Thereafter, a petition to remove the cause to the federal court was filed by the petitioner. The respondents filed in the Federal District Court a motion to dismiss the complaint filed therein and a motion to remand the case removed from the state court.

The federal court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint but denied the motion to remand. The petitioner appealed from the judgment dismissing its complaint. The respondents gave notice of appeal from the order of the District Court denying the motion to remand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing the complaint and