Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/19

 BYBEH ». HAWKBTT. 1 �SwHyno dlssented from so much of the opinion as eeemed to assuma that under the first clause of section 2 of said act of 1875 a removal could net be had unless each party to the controversy is "a citizen of a different state from that of which either of the parties on the other side is' a citizen," and held that a "controversy," within the meaning of the constitution and the act, may exist between citizens of different states and also of the same state ; but that notwith- standing, when any of the parties to such controversy are citizens of a different state from any other of such parties,- — when "any of the contestants on opposite sides of the con- controversy are citizens of different states," — a removal may be had by such party. �In Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 20, Mr. Justice Field said: "A controversy was involved in the sense of the statute [March 2, 1867; 14 St. 658] whenever any property or claim of the parties, capable of pecuniary estimation, was the sub- ject of litigation, and was presented by the pleadings for judicial determination." In this case there is a controversy (1) between Bybee and Jesse Robinson as to whether the latter was a member of the firm of Hawkett & Eobinson, and is therefore liable to him accordingly; (2) between the same parties as to the validity and effect of Eobinson's alleged mortgage; (3) between Bybee and Hawkett and the Eob- insons — one or both of them, as the case may be — oon- ceming the alleged liens of the debts assumed and alleged to have been assumed by Hawkett & Eobinson; and (i) between the same parties concerning the working and disposition of the products of the mine. �These controversies are ail between citizens of different states, and the parties to them also stand in the pleadings as plaintiffs and defendants in the suit — Bybee, a citizen of Oregon, on the one side, and Hawkett and the Eobinsons, citizens of California, on the other. It matters not what other controversies or parties there are in or to the suit. Under even the first clause of the section, and aceording to the restrained construction put upon it by the majority of the court in the Removal Cases, supra, the existence of these ����