defendants." In a suit to quiet title, where the bill requires each defendant to set up any claim he may have, is a separable controversy.10 An action in Nebraska to foreclose mortgages in which plaintiffs are citizens of Wisconsin, and one of several incumbrancers joined is a citizen of Illinois, the suit is severable and removable by him to the circuit court.11 An action of tort in a State court being joint and several against two defendants, one of whom is non-resident, is removable by him. 12 A resident corporation of Colorado sued defendants, one of whom was a citizen of Minnesota and one of Wisconsin, in a Colorado court, and defendants removed the case to the United States court for the district of Colorado; held proper. 13 Where the question of the validity of the deed was one which was so entirely separate and distinct from those questions involved in the general proceedings that it could properly be eliminated therefrom without prejudice to such proceedings, it was one which the United States court had jurisdiction to determine.

1 Stanbrough v. Cook (Iowa), 38 Fed. Rep. 369.

2 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; Putnam v. Ingraham, Id. 57.

3 Ames v. Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 881; Sexton v. Seelye, Id. 705.

4 Patchin v. Hunter, 38 Fed. Rep. 51.

5 Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407.

6 Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187; Stanbrough v. Cook (Iowa), 38 Fed. Rep. 369.

7 Carter v. Scott, 8 South East. Rep. 421.

8 Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539.

9 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Myers ("Pacific R. Removal Cases"), 115 U. S. 1.

10 Bacon v. Felt, 38 Fed. Rep. 870.

11 Rich v. Gross, 45 North West. Rep. 463.

12 Spangler v. Atchison T. & S F R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 305.

13 Pitkin County Min. Co. v. Markell, 33 Fed. Rep. 386.

14 Gould v. Mullanphy Planing-Mill Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 181.

§ 96 o. Limitation of right to remove a separable controversy.—Under the Act of Congress of 1887, the right to remove a separable controversy is confined to citizens of different States, United States Revised Statutes, section 639, clause 2, being repealed. Upon the ground

elected under a State law involves no Federal question. 18 The question whether the title of the true owner of lands is extinguished by adverse possession is not a Federal question. 19 Where it appears at the trial that there is no question involved in the case which it is competent for the court to decide, the case will be dismissed. 20 A controversy as to a non-resident defendant, on the ground of citizenship, must be wholly between citizens of different states. 21 So where one director of a corporation is a citizen of the District of Columbia the cause is not removable. 22

1 Walsh v. Memphis C. & N. W. R. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 797.

2 State v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 245; Beardsley v. Torrey, 1 Wash. C. C. 286; Smith v. Rines, 2 Sum. 338.

3 Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock. 389.

4 Mining & Manuf. Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175.

5 Brown v. Crippen, 4 Hen. & M. 173.

6 Hunter v Royal Canadian Ins. Co., 3 Hughes, 234; Cobb v. Globe Mut. L. Ins. Co., 3 Hughes, 452.

7 Traders' B'k v. Tallmadge, 9 Fed. Rep. 363.

8 National Union B'k v. Dodge, 11 The Reporter, 641.

9 Burdick v. Hale, 7 Biss. 96.

10 Smith v. Rines, 2 Sum. 338.

11 Gaughran v. N. W. F. Ins. Co., 3 Biss. 435; Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 3 Biss. 500; State v. C. & A. R. Co., 6 Biss. 107; Yulee v. Vose, 91 U. S. 539; Robinson v. Potter, 43 N H. 133; Short v. Wilson, 1 Bush, 350; Amory v. Amory, 96 U. S. 183; Cooley v. Lawrence, 5 Duer, 605; Brian v. Ponder, 23 Ga. 48); Redinon 1 v. Russell, 12 Johas. 153; Fish v. Fish, 4 Mart in N. S. 676; Darst v. Bates, 51 Ill. 439.

12 Dennistoun v. N. Y. & N. H. R. Co., 2 Abb. Pr. 415.

13 Crescent City L. S. Co. v. Butchers' Union Co., 12 Fed. Rep. 225.

14 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379.

15 Swope v Leffingwell, 105 U. S. 3.

16 Fashnacht v. Frank, 23 Wall. 416.

17 Berger v. Douglas Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 23.

18 Dubuelet v. State, 103 U. S. 150.

19 Poppe v. Langford, 101 U. S. 770.

20 Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288.

21 Douglass v. Richmond etc. R. Co. 10 South East Rep. 1048. 22 Seddon v. Virginia T. & C. S. & I. Co (Va.) 33 Fed. Rep. 6; Miller v. Sharp, 37 Fed. Rep. 161.

§ 96 q. Must be capable of being fully determined between the parties.-A suit cannot be removed from a State court to a Federal court by one of several defendants unless his interest is so separate and

eral defendants, sued as partners, may, if the other requisites exist, have the cause removed so far as concerns himself, if there can be a final determination so far as concerns him.10 If there can be no final determination of the controversy without the presence of the other defendants, the case cannot be removed by the petitioner alone." If citi zens of the State are joint defendants with citizens of other States, the case cannot be removed. 12 An allegation in the petition that the case is susceptible of division is an allegation of law. 13

1 Ex parte Andrews, 40 Ala. 639.

2 Ex parte Andrews, 43 Ala. 633.

3 Fields v. Lamb, Deady, 430; Bixby v. Couse, 8 Blatchf. 73; Dart v. Walker, 43 How. Pr 29.

4 Allen v. Ryerson, 2 Dill. 501; Bixby v. Couse, 8 Blatchf. 73

5 Sewing Mach Co's Case, 18 Wall. 553, S. C, 110 Mass. 70; McGinnity v. White, 3 Dill. 350; Field v Lownsdale, Deady, 283.

6 Merwin v. Wexel, 49 How Pr. 115.

7 Lewis v. White, 7 Ch. L N. 116. 8 Field v Lownsdale, Deady, 283. 9 Stewart v. Mordecai, 40 Ga 1.

10 McGinnity v. White, 3 Dill. 350, Wormser v. Dahlman, 57 How. Pr. 286.

11 Hodgkins v Hayes, 9 Abb Pr. N. S. 87: Darst v Bates, 51 Ill 439; Burch v Davenport & St PR Co., 46 Iowa, 449; Washington A. & G. R. Co v. Alexandria & W. R Co., 19 Gratt. 592.

12 North Riv. S. Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Johns. 300; Williams v. Price, 5 Munf 507

13 Levy v. O'Neil. 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 63.

§ 96 s. Inseparable controversy not removable. -An action to establish a will, or to probate a will;2 or to contest a will;3 is a single and indivisible controversy; or a suit to set aside a deed obtained by fraud, and to set aside a subsequent deed and lease; or a suit to close up a partnership where the main dispute is about its existence;5 or a bill by one partner to recover from others for an account of the proceeds of the sale of firm property; or a suit to reach the entire property of a limited partnership and to declare certain judgments against it void; or an action on a partnership obligation; or a bill by a stockholder against his own and another corporation to which it has been leased, to set aside the lease; or a suit by a citizen of one State against three corporations, of other