Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/798

 790 FEDERAL EBPOETER. �between citizens of different states, * » • either party may remove saià suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. And when, in any suit men- tioned in this section, there shall be a controversy whicb is wbolly between citizens of different states, and wbich can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the plaintifïs or defendants actually interested in such con- troversy may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. " �The suit is a creditor's bill brought to reach property in the hands of the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, and certain other property held by Peyton S. Davidson, to be applied in satisfaction of judgments separately obtained by the plaintiffs against the Northwestern Union Packet Com- pany in 1873 and 1874. The complaint charges that in March, 1873, there was a fraudulent transfer made by the defendant, the Northwestern Union Packet Company, of ail its steamboats, barges and other personal effects to the defend- ant, the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, which ought in equity to be now applied in satisfaction of th& plaintiff's judgments. And, also, that about April 1, 18T3, there was a fraudulent conveyance by the Northwestern Union Packet Company of certain lots and real estate, sit- uate at La Crosse, to the defendant Peyton S. Davidson, which they are also entitled to have applied toward the pay- ment of their said claims. The Northwestern Union Packet Company bas not been doing business for many years, was not served with process, and makes no appearance. The Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company contends that there is a controversy between citizens of different states, and, also, that there is a controversy in the case that is wholly between it and the plaintiffs, who are citizens of the different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, within the meaning of section 2 of the act of 1875, so as to entitle it to a removal to this court. �The plaintiffs contend that the suit is one controversy, and that no removal can bô allowod, because ail of the defendants ��� �