Opinion of the Court. Section twelve of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, required the petition for removal to be filed by the defendant" at the time of entering his appearance in such state court," (1 Stat. 79,) and those words were omitted in the act of 1887, though probably the omission is of no special significance. Some cases are referred to, however, which were decided under that section, and have not been followed under the present statute. Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421; Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; Sayles v. Northwestern Insurance Co., 2 Curtis, 212. These were all cases of attachment and of jurisdiction asserted in the state courts through the levy of the writs. The last two cited were satisfactorily disposed of in Goldey v. Morning News. In Pollard v. Dwight, it appears that the objection that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, "the plaintiffs being citizens of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and the defendants citizens of Virginia, not found in the district of Connecticut," was not raised in the Circuit Court, but for the first time in the assignment of errors after judgment in that court, and it was accordingly held that, "by appearing to the action, the defendants in the court below placed themselves precisely in the situation in which they would have stood, had process been served upon them, and consequently waived all objections to the non-service of process." The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the Circuit Court is also reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to grant a new trial, sustain the motion to set aside the service of the declaration and rule to plead, and dismiss the action. MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissented. Opinion of the Court. NATIONAL ACCIDENT SOCIETY v. SPIRO. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 460. Submitted April 27, 1896. - Decided November 30, 1896. A defendant, by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the United States court, in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, does not thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the summons. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. H. D. McBurney for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry H. Ingersoll for defendant in error. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, propounding, after a preliminary statement, the following question: "Does a defendant by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the United States court, in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the summons?" For the reasons given and on the authorities cited in the case of Wabash Western Railway v. Brow, ante, 271, the question must be answered in the negative. Certificate accordingly. MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissented. Opinion of the Court. UNITED STATES v. DELANEY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 493. Submitted November 3, 1896. - Decided November 30, 1896. Doing that which it is necessary to do, in order that a newly created land office may be in a proper and fit condition at the time appointed for opening it for public business, is a part of the official duties of the person who is appointed its register and receiver. The claimant having entered on the performance of such duties at a new office in Oklahoma on the 18th of July, 1890, and having been engaged in performing them, in the manner described by the court in its opinion, from thence to the 1st of September following, when the office was opened for the transaction of public business, is entitled to compensation as register and receiver during that period. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dodge and Mr. Assistant Attorney Gorman for appellants. Mr. W. W. Dudley, Mr. L. T. Michener, Mr. John C. Chaney and Mr. J. R. Garrison for appellee. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from the Court of Claims. It involves simply the question as to the right of the appellee to compensation as register and receiver of the land office at the city of Oklahoma, in the Territory of Oklahoma, from the 18th of July to the 1st of September, 1890. It appears from the findings of fact by the Court of Claims that the land office at Oklahoma city was first established by an executive order of the President on the 6th of June, 1890. The appellee, John C. Delaney, was duly appointed and commissioned as receiver of public moneys at Oklahoma city on the 23d of June, 1890, and on the 7th of July, 1890, he qualified by taking the oath of office and giving the bond required by law. On the 10th of July, 1890, the claimant was verbally directed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to Opinion of the Court. go to Oklahoma as speedily as possible, and make the necessary preparations to open the office at that place. He left his residence in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 15th and arrived at Oklahoma city on the 18th of July, 1890. The land district at Oklahoma city was taken from parts of the two districts of Guthrie and Kingfisher, and on the 18th of July, 1890, the Commissioner of the General Land Office wrote to appellee at Oklahoma city, stating to him that the officers at Guthrie and Kingfisher had been directed to turn over to him all the plats and records of every description relating to the lands forming his district, and asking him to at once confer with those officers upon the subject. The letter also contained the following: "As soon as the records are received, you will proceed to give notice by publication, as an advertisement, at regular advertising rates, in the newspaper having the largest circulation in your district, once a week for four weeks, of the precise date when your office will be open for the transaction of public business, when the officers at Guthrie and Kingfisher will cease transacting business relating to the lands transferred." Between the 18th day of July (the date of the arrival of the appellee at Oklahoma city) and the 1st day of September, 1890 (the date on which the office was formally opened for the transfer of land and the receipt of money), the appellee was engaged in attending to business pertaining to his office, which had necessarily to be transacted before the date of the formal opening of the office in accordance with the published notice. Upon this subject the Court of Claims found: "The nature of the services performed by claimant after his arrival and before the 1st of September is as follows: Conferring with the officers of other districts in the Territory from which his district was formed to determine what date to open the office; preparing and issuing thirty days' notice of the day fixed for opening the office; overseeing and superintending the preparation of rooms for the office; getting estimates for the manufacture of cases for the office; superintending the constructing of fixtures and having them put into the office; giving information and receiving instructions from the inspec Opinion of the Court. tor; attending to the transfer of the records from the other offices of the Territory to that of the Oklahoma office. During said time there was a continuous arrival of letters from different parts of the district as well as letters from the department, which required the attention of claimant up to the 1st of September, 1890." The land office of which the claimant was receiver was in fact opened for the transaction of business the 1st day of September, 1890, pursuant to the published notice to that effect, thirty days prior to that time, and the claimant insists that he commenced his services as receiver upon his arrival at Oklahoma on the 18th day of July, 1890, while the defendant, the appellant, urges that his term of office commenced when the office was opened for the entry and sale of land, September 1, 1890, and from that time it has allowed him compensation. The written communication to the claimant from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated Washington, July 18, 1890, enclosed to the claimant the notice of the establishment of the office at Oklahoma city, and the letter in general terms defines certain services which were necessary to be performed before the opening of the office for the entry and sale of lands; and in pursuance of that letter the claimant commenced the performance of those services preliminary to the opening of the office. The character of the service has already been stated. Section 2243, Revised Statutes, provides that "the compensation of registers and receivers, both for salary and commissions, shall commence and be calculated from the time they respectively enter upon the discharge of their duties." The sole question in this case, therefore, is when did the claimant, within the meaning of the above section, "enter on the discharge of his duties"? The claimant had been duly appointed on the 23d of June, 1890. On July 7, 1890, he had qualified by taking the oath of office and giving the bond required by law. The office was newly established and was taken from parts of two other land offices. Pursuant to the directions of the Commissioner of the General Land Office the claimant had left his home in Pennsylvania on the 15th day of July, 1890, and arrived at |