Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/377

 BDOKMAN V. PAIalSAOB TikSO 00. 869 �character is only removable when either party — I. «., ail of the plaintiffs or ail of the defendants — join in the petition for removal. National Union Bank of Dover v. Dodge, 25 Int. Eev. Eec. 304i But a suit of the second charactet may be removed by one or mor« of the plaintiffs or defendants actu- ally interested in such oontroversy. If the present cause ia removable by these proeeedings, it must be under the laat clause of the section, as only one of the defendants has ûled the petition. �We bave, then, to consider these two questions : (1) Does the suit embrace a controversy which is wholly between citi- zens of different states, and which ean be fully determined as between them? (2) Has the defendant Buckman an actual interest in such controversy ? If both are answered in the aairmative the removal is within the law, otherwise the cause must be remanded. �' It is concede d that a suit may include more than one controvetsy There may be several. Many different subjects of controversy are often involved in a suit, in some of which one or more of the defendants are actuaUy interested, and the other defendants are not. �In Taylor v. Rockefeller, 18 Am. Law Reg. 307, Mr. Justice Strong, in interpreting this clause of the third section of the act, says: "The right of removal is given where any one of these controversies is wholly between citizens of different states, and can be fully determined, as between them, though there may be other defendants actually interested In other controversies embraced in the suit. The clause 'a contro- versy which can be fully determined as between them,' rcad ia connection with the other words, 'actually interested in sneh controversy,' implies that there may be other parties to the suit, and even necessary parties, who are not entitled to remove it. Such other parties must be indispensable to a determination of that controversy, which is wholly between the citizens of different states, or their being parties tO the actioh is no obstacle to the remoyal of the case into the cir- cuit court." �v.l.no.6 — 24 ��� �