Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/370

 BÔQ FEDERAL ]S;E!F0BTII;B. �restraining or enjoining him, or is Çi suit in wliîcîi there can be a final determination of tiie aontroversy, sofar as concems hina, without the presence,pfthe other defendants as parties in the cause, Now, if the sçoond clause of the second section of the act of March 3, 1875, was intended to coyer cases of tbis kind, it would have been natural and easy to repeat the language of the act of 186,7. Instead of that, however, we find that it is only necessary that there shall be a controversy ■whpUy between citizens of different states, and which can be f uUy determined, as between them, without the presence of other plaintiffs or defendants who may bave been joined with them as parties to the case. If it were otherwise, then the presence of the îmnecessary defendant, who might be unwill- ing to have the case removed, could in any case prevent suoh removal. �Upon a careful reading of this section I bave concluded that the first clause relates only to cases in which there is a single indivisible controversy, and in which ail the individuals upon the moving aide are necessary parties to such con- troversy. In such case ail of the individuals upon such side of the controversy must unite in the petition. The second clause contemplates cases in which there shall be parties whose presence is not necessary to the determination of the main controversy, in which case either one or more of their co-parties may petition for removal, even though ail be citizens of the same state. �This is the case set forth in the petition for removal in thia cause, and the motion to remaud must, tberefore, be denied. ����