15 Reineman v. Ball, 33 Fed. Rep. 632.

16 Western U. Tel. Co. v. Brown, 32 Fed. Rep. 337. 17 Laidly v. Huntington, 121 U. S. 179.

18 Re San Antonio & A. P. R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 145. 19 Richmond etc. R. Co v. Findley, 32 Fed. Rep. 641. 20 Ames v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep 881.

§ 96 t. Decisions under Act of 1875.-The controversy must be wholly between citizens of different States to give the right to remove. Congress did not intend to confer the right where a citizen of a State other than that in which suit is brought is united with one who is a citizen of the latter State; so in a bill to foreclose a mortgage;3 or to redeem from a mortgage sale. So the purchaser of an equity of redemption cannot remove if mortgagor and mortgagee are citizens of the same State;5 and so where a judgment creditor intervenes. Where the suit embraces a single individual controversy, one party cannot remove if the other party consists of residents and nonresidents; so of a bill for a specific performance; or a bill to dissolve a corporation; or where the owner elects to bring an action for a conversion; or if, in the contest of a will, or in a suit to annul a will, necessary parties joined are residents and non-residents.il If a stockholder disputes the rights of both claimants, and one is a citizen of another State, the case cannot be removed. 12 A suit to recover land where the real parties are claimants, and damages are demanded of non-residents, cannot be removed. 13 If substantial relief is asked against a party who is a citizen of the same State as plaintiff, the cause cannot be removed. Where non-residents sued out attachments, and these were followed by other attachments by resident creditors, the non-residents cannot remove the cause. 15 Where less than all the plaintiffs or defendants seek to remove, they must be citizens of different States, and the controversy must be wholly between them;16 for unless the original controversy is between citizens of different States, the case is not removable;17 so a judgment creditor cannot remove a cause where the controversy is between citizens of the same State. 18 If complainant and some of the defendants are citizens of the same State, the cause cannot be removed;19 even where one defendant is a citizen of the State, it cannot be re

termined as between them, the cause will be remanded to the State court. 39 After trial, reversal, and remand for a new trial, it is too late to remove on the ground of separable controversy.39 Separate answers to one cause of action do not constitute separate controversies, 40 even if they raise separate issues. 1 A separate defense by one defendant in a joint suit against him and others, upon a joint, or a joint and several, cause of action, does not create a separate controversy.42 Allegation of defendants that each acted separately on his own account, and not jointly, does not divide the suit into separate controversies.13 When one of several defendants in a suit on a joint cause of action loses his right to remove the action into a circuit court by failing to make the application in time, the right is lost as to all. 44 Where a plaintiff has a cause of action against two defendants, one a citizen of the same State, the other a citizen of another State, and where the proof is the same against both, and the same judgment is to be rendered against both, it is not a divisible or separate controversy, and therefore cannot be removed into a Federal court upon the application of the non-resident defendant, on the ground alone of citizenship.1 Where a certain corporation is not only a proper, but a necessary, party to an indivisible controversy, the suit is not removable, its citizenship being identical with that of certain of its co-defendants. 46 No separable and removable controversy is presented by a foreclosure suit, where the rights of all parties are intimately blended with the foreclosure, and all depend on one final decree. *7 Where one claiming title to real estate under a trust deed, files a bill, setting up that her title is superior to that of trustee, or the rights of the holder of the notes secured by the trust deed, the trustee is an indispensable party to the suit, and the holder of the notes cannot, on the ground of his own citizenship, remove the cause from the State to the Federal court, the trustee being a citizen of the same State with the complainant. 48 Where plaintiff's complaint demanded a separate account from each of several trustees of a mining company, whom plaintiff charged with having improperly divided among them profits realized from stock, there was as to each trustee a separable controversy.43 Creditor's bill to subject encumbered property to pay

45