Young vs. Northern Ill. Coal & Iron Co. company in debt to its miners, and was obliged to raise a large sum of money to pay off this indebtedness, a stronger equity attaches to this fund in favor of the mortgagee, who was obliged to make the advances necessary to pay the men. But it must be remembered that this indebtedness to the bank and that to the men were both the debts of the coal company, and the demands represented by these drafts were assets of the coal company. Clearly, the coal company had the right to assign or pledge these claims to secure the debt. due the bank, and the court must respect the right of the bank, thus created. The coal company had in effect specifically appropriated these claims to the bank, and the appointment of the receiver cannot defeat rights which have thus been created. If these assets had come to the hands of the receiver unincumbered by any previous pledge or assignment by the coal company, I have no doubt the court could have directed their application to the payment of the debts of the coal company incurred in the operation of the property, but the court cannot divest rights to these funds which had accrued prior to the appointment of the receiver. Besides, it may be said that the mortgagee was under no legal or moral obligation to pay these laborers' claims. They were ordered paid because it was deemed expedient to do so rather than incur the risk of a riot or strike by the employés of the mine. Order that receiver pay to bank the sums collected on accounts due from the Illinois Central and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad companies, and costs. Sheldon vs. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. S. L. SHELDON et al. vs. KEOKUK NORTHERN LINE PACKET COMPANY et al. CIRCUIT COURT-WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN- IN EQUITY. 1. FEDERAL JURISDICTION-REMOVAL OF CAUSES.-Where there are several controversies in the same suit, which are properly severable in their character, and any one of such controversies is wholly between citizens of different states, the suit may be removed from the State to the Federal Court under the act of 1875, though another controversy in the same suit is wholly between citizens of the same state. 2. CONTROVERSY-CREDITOR'S BILL.-The complainants filed a creditor's bill and alleged that the judgment-debtor had fraudulently conveyed certain property to one of the defendants A. and certain other property to defendant B.: Held, that there was a controversy wholly between the complainants and A. and they being citizens of different states, the whole cause was removable to the Federal Court. 3. ACT OF 1875 CONSTRUED-CITIZENSHIP OF PARTIES.-Under the act of 1875, in order for the removal of a cause from the State to the Federal Court, it is not necessary that all the defendants shall be residents of a state other than the one wherein the plaintiff resides. If there is a controversy between the plaintiff and any one of the defendants who is a citizen of a different state, the cause may be removed. Motion to remand cause to State Court. S. U. Pinney, for complainants. Sloan, Stevens & Morris, for defendants. BUNN, J.-This action was commenced in the State Court by the plaintiffs, who are residents of Wisconsin, against the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, a resident of Sheldon vs. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. Missouri, the Northwestern Union Packet Company, a resident of Iowa, and Peyton S. Davidson, a resident of Wisconsin. The defendant, the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company applies to have the case removed to this court under the second section of the act of Congress, of March 3, 1875 (Chap. 137, Laws 1875), which is as follows: "That any suit of a civil nature at law or in equity, now pending, or hereafter brought in any State Court, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, * * 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, for the proper district. And when in any suit mentioned in this section, there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit. into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district." The suit is a creditor's bill brought to reach property in the hands of the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, and certain other property held by Peyton S. Davidson, to be applied in satisfaction of judgments separately obtained by the plaintiffs against the Northwestern Union Packet Company in 1873 and 1874. The complaint charges that in March, 1873, there was a fraudulent transfer made by the defendant, the Northwestern Union Packet Company, of all its steamboats, barges and other personal effects, to the defendant, the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, which ought in equity to be now applied in satisfaction of the plaintiff's judgments; and also that about April 1, 1873, there was a fraudulent conveyance by the Northwestern Union Packet Company, of certain lots and real estate, Sheldon vs. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. situate at La Crosse, to the defendant, Peyton S. Davidson, which they are also entitled to have applied toward the payment of their said claims. The Northwestern Union Packet Company has not been doing business for many years, was not served with process, and makes no appearance. The Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company contends that there is a controversy between citizens of different states, and also that there is a controversy in the case that is wholly between it and the plaintiffs who are citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, within the meaning of section 2 of the act of 1875, so as to entitle it to a removal to this court. The plaintiff's coutend that the suit is one controversy, and that no removal can be allowed because all of the defendants. are not non-residents of the state of Wisconsin where the plaintiffs reside. Upon a careful examination of the bill of complaint and of the Removal Statutes, I think the case comes within both the clauses of section 2 of the act of 1875. I have not come to this conclusion without hesitation; because the Supreme Court have not yet placed a construction upon the act; and because, according to the construction uniformly given to the original removal clause in the judiciary act of 1789, and subsequent acts amendatory thereof, there would be no right of removal in this case, for the reason that one of the defendants, Peyton S. Davidson, is a resident of the same state with the plaintiffs. Under that act the right of removal did not exist unless all of the defendants were residents of a state other than the one in which the plaintiffs resided, and it is contended that the same construction is applicable to the law of 1875. But it cannot fail to be observed that the law of 1875 adopts the language of the Constitution, as though it were the intention of Congress to widen out the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in removal cases, Sheldon vs. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. and make it commensurate with that conferred by that instrument. The act of 1789 provided that if a suit be commenced in * * * any State Court by a citizen of the state in which the suit was brought against a citizen of another state, the defendant might file a petition for a removal, etc. It is manifest that the jurisdiction thus conferred falls far short of the constitutional provision, which extends the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to all controversies between citizens of different states, where the amount or value in dispute exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars; thus leaving a large reserve of power in the Federal Courts which could not be exercised without further legislation by Congress. The law of July 27, 1866, provided for a removal on application of a defendant who was a citizen of a state other than the one in which the plaintiff resided, where the suit was one in which there could be a final determination of the controversy so far as it concerned him without the presence of the other defendants; and allowed the case to proceed as to the resident defendants in the State Court. first material departure from the act of 1789. amended by the act of March 2, 1867, so as This was the This act was to allow a re moval on the application of either plaintiff or defendant on making and filing in the State Court an affidavit that he had reason to believe, and did believe, that from prejudice or local influence he would not be able to obtain justice in the State Court. This still further widened the jurisdiction, by allowing a removal on the application of the plaintiff as well as defendant. The law of 1875, is broader and more comprehensive than all the others, and it would seem that Congress by employing the language they did, intended to avoid the construction so uniformly placed upon the previous acts, and to allow a removal wherever there should be, in the language |