Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/117

 lOWA HOMESTBAD CO. V. DES MOINES NAVIGATION, ETC., 00. 108 �This would result, in a case like the present, in tuming the plamtiff round to a new suit in the state court upon his controversy with iihe citizens of the state to which he belongs. �Now, where the plai"ntifiE has selected his adversaries, made thein defendants, this resuit, in the absence of any question of the statute of limitations, would impose no great hardship upon him. It would be no more than the inevitable resuit of his own misjudgment in joining unneeessarily, in one suit, two distinct and separable contro- versies, — one between himself and a citizen of the same state with himself, and another between himself and a citizen of some other state. But in the case before us the solution of the difficulty sug- gested would work intolerable hardship to the plaintiff. He com- menced his suit against a citizen of the same state with himself in the proper state court. He did not unite in this suit a controversy with a citizen of any different state. Nothing which might have been adjudged by the state court against the original defendant could possibly have affected the rights of Litchfield if he had not volunta- rily appeared there. But if this court, by reason of Litchfield's voluntary intervention and removal of the cause, must, for want of jurisdiction of the controversy between the plaintiff and the original defendant, dismiss the suit as to that controversy even without preju- dice, tum the plaintiff round to a new suit in the state court, and pro- ceed to judgment between the plaintiff and Litchfield, the latter, by his intervention, will accomplish a resuit without a parallel in judi- cial proceedings. �If, on the contrary, we proceed here to hear and determine the whole suit, we must pronounce judgment upon a separate, distiuct, and indepondent controversy between two citizens of the same state. But, if we remand the case, Litchfield need not be in the slightest degree prejudieed in his right to have his cause determined in this court. He will be at perfect liberty, as his counsel concedes, to with- draw from the state court; and most certainly, if any judgment should then be rendered in that court affecting his interests, he would have the right to corne here, by direct suit, for relief. Finally, the plain- tiff has, by amendment, expressly diselaimed any demand whatever against the defendant Litchfield, or the lands in which Litchfield is interested, There is, theref ore, no real controversy here, except that which exists between the homestead and navigation companies, both citizens of lowa. �I see no reason whatever, therefore, why the cause should not be ��� �