Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/323

 KATINS V. ATLANTIC & OHIO E. CO. 311 �<int states that *he coui-t hfis jurisdiction. This construction of the second section must be taken as the constructiou 6f the first. The court has in two instances said 80. �An argument was pressed upon us, based on the second clause of 1;he second section, intended to show that this clause contemplates a riore extensive jurisdiction than I have indicated, as conferred by the first clause of this section. . The argument was, that if the sec- ond clause conferred such jurisdiction, it must be referred back to l_ie first, for it could hardly be intended that the court should exer- cise a more extensive jurisdiction in cases of removal than in cases where suit is direotly brought in the federal court. In the Removal Cases, cited, the court did not feel oalled upon to construe the second «lause of this section. I find, however, in the last volume of reports {Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205) a case in which the clause has xeceived a construction by the supreme court, viz., that by it congress intended to import into the act of 1875 the provision of the act of July 27, 1866, (le St. at Large, 306,) that where there are several defendants, some residing in the same state with the plaintiff and others in different states, and there are several distinct cohtroversies in the suit, the parties to a distinct controversy, residing in different . states, may ask for a removal, (Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205.) The court further holds that the act of 1875 goes beyond that of 1866, and authorizes the transfer of the entire suit; so that, the parties being as above, and there being a severable controversy between citizens of the same state and between citizens of different states, the act of 1875 authorizes a removal of the entire suit. Itis true, there- fore; that the second clause of the second section of the act of 1875 does <5onfer in cases of removal a jurisdiction more extensive than that conferred by the first section. This view cannot, however, affect the construction of the first section. But even if the present suit had been hrought in a state court, it could not have been removcd, because there is here but a single controversy- — a controversy between all the plain- tiffs and all the defendants.^-^one in which all are jointly interested. �MoKennan, 0. S.f {orally.) The ppnclusion arrived at by Judge Butler is the resuit of our joint consideration of the question, and I concur in what he has said. �Bill dismissed.,, �Note. If a part of the plaintiffs are citizens of the'statfe where the suit is brought and a part of some Other state the defendant oanrtotreinove the suit. ��� �