Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/337

 830 riiDBBAIi BXPOBTSa. �from mating suoh payment at maturity by the fault of de- fendant. �Tke following authorities show the reluctance of courts to enforce forfeitures in tbis class of cases, and support the gen- erai views I have expressed: Insurance Co. v. Wolff, 95 U^ S. 326; Insv/rance Co. T. Eggleston, 96 U. S. 572; Insurance Co. T. Norton, là. 234; Insurance Co, v. Pierce, 75 Dl. 426; Thompson v. Insurance Co. 52 Mo. 469 ; Mayer v. Insurance Co. 38 lowa, 304 ; Insurance Co. v. Warner, 80 111. 410 ; Insv/r- ance Co. V. Robertson, 59 111. 123. �Judgment for plaintif for amount of the policy and interest. ���BuBiiS and others v. Hydb and others, �(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota., 1880. ) �I. ReuotaI' — ACT o» Mahch 8, 1875, S 2. — In order that a suit may bc removed by eitlier party, under section 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, ail the persons forming the party on one sida of the controveray must be citizens of states different from tbose of which the other party ai« citizens. �Motion to Eemand. �Gordon E. Cole, for plaintiffs. �Charles W. Bunn, for defendants. �Nelson, D. J. A motion is made to remand thîs suit, which îs removed from the state court on the petition of ail the defendants, under the provisions of the second section of the act of March 3, 1876. The following is the clause under which the suit was removed : �"That anysuit of a civil nature, at law or in equity,now pend- ing * * * ia any state court, where the matter in dispute ex- ceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $500, • • * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, • * * either party may remove said suit into the circuit coui-t of the United States for the propei district." ����