Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/111

 lOWA H0ME8TEAD CO. V. DBS MOINES NAVIGATION, ETC., 00. 97 ���loWA HOMBSTBAD Co. V. DbS MoINES NAVIGATION & EaILBOAD Co. Olld �others. {Circuit Court, S. B. I<ma. June 1, 1881.) �1. JURISDICTIOSf — CONTBOVERBT BeTWBBN CiTIZBNS OP THB SaMB BtATB. �Whenever the sole controversy, in a suit begun in a state court, but subse- quently removed to a federal court, is one between citizens of the same state, the suit will be remanded, upon motion, to the state court f rom which it was removed. �2. Same— Same. �The parties to a suit brought in a state court to enforce a claim to a large amount of taxes which the complainant alleged it had paid in good faith, and under color of title, upon certain lands, were both citizens of the state in -whose court the bill was filed. The bill prayed that the amount found to be due should be charged as a special lien upon the lands, and f urther prayed that the lands might be sold to satisfy the same. One Litchfleld petitioned the court to be allowed to intervene in the cause, setting up the fact that he was the owner of the lands. His petition was granted ; and thereupon, being a citizen of another state, he flled his petition and bond to remove the cause to a federal court. This petition also was granted, and the cause was removed. The complainant appeared, and moved that the cause be remanded. This motion was overruled. The complainant then moved to have the order denying the motion to remand set aside. This motion was also denied. Thereupon, at the sugges- tion of the court, he dismissed all that part of his bill praying that the amount found due should be charged as a special lien upon the land, and renewed his motion to remand. At this stage of the proceedings the intervenor asked and was allowed to file a cross-bill aga'nst the original parties to the suit, praying for a decree that the land be declared free and clear of any lien as prayed for by the complainant. A second motion of the complainant to remand was then denied. Subsequently, the complainant, by leave of the court, presents an amendment to his bill, dismissing all claims whatever, except for a judg- ment against the respondent for the amount of the taxes, and the intervenor also presents an amendment to his cross-bill, alleging that by his contract with the respondent he bas assumed all of said respondent's liability to the com- plainant for the taxes in question. The complainant once more asks that the cause be remanded. RM, that the federal court no longer has jurisdibtion of the suit, as there is now no controversy here except between citizens of the same state. Motion to remand granted. �8. Same. �It seems that, after the suggestion of the court to dismiss that part of the bill praying that the amount due, etc., had been followed, the court no longer had jurisdiction of the case, and the motion to remand, made at that stage of the proceedings, should have been granted, and the petition of the intervenor to file a cross-bill should have been denied. �4. Samb — Du AL CoKTKovERSiEs— One Between Citizens dp the Same State United m Same Suit with an Entirelt Indepbndent One Between Citizens of Different States — Union of, Due in no Wat to Plaintifp. Where the union of a controversy between citizens of the same state with an entixely independent one between the plaintifE and a third person, a citizen of a state other than that of the plaintifl, is due in no measure to the plaintifE, it seems that a federal court has no jurisdiction of the suit. T.8,no.3— 7 ��� �