Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/854

 842 FEDERAL REPORTER, �court, under the act of 1875, must show the citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the suit.* As- suming the correctness of that general rule, we are to inquire, how does it affect this case ? The removal here was upon the petition of ToUman, the Intervenor, who beoame the owner of ail the interest of the original defendant by a purchase at judicial sale, made after this suit was brought and had been for some time pending, but before trial. The petition for re- moval was filed simultaneously with the petition of interven- tion, and the allegation is that the intervenor was a citizen of New York at the time of filing the petition, or, in other words, at the time he became a party to the suit. Of course, his citizenship before he became a party is unimportant, so far as this question is concerned. If he had the right to remove at ail, it was manifestly sufficient to aver the citizen- ship of the parties at the time that right aocrued ; that is to say, at the time he beoame a party to the suit. �The only question to be considered, therefore, is whether a party who in good faith becomes the owner of property pending the litigation conceruing the title thereto, in a state court, and who, by proper means, makes himself a party to the cause in such court before trial, is entitled to the bepe- fits of the provisions of the act of March 3, 1875, relating to the removal of causes. In other words, if such a party be a non-resident of the state, has he, when coming into the case by intervention, the same right of removal that he would have had if originally a party plaintiff or defendant? The statute provides that in any suit of a civil nature, brought in any state court, involving pver |500, in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, "either party may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States," etii. Section 2, Act of March 3, 1875. Can we, with propriety, limit the application of the words "either party" to the original plaintiff and defendant ? I think not. The act applies to ail hona Jide litigants in the state courts, whether made parties originally or not. "Either party," �*See Beede v. Oheeney, 5 Ped. Rbp. 388 ; and Kaeiser y. Illinois Cent. B. Co., ante, 1- ��� �