BHELDON V. KEOKUK N. L. P. 00. 795 �to the party, jjlaintiff or defendant ; bo that, where some are residents and some non-residents, ail might have to join in the application, which is not the case under the second clause. �It might be claimed that the second clause amounts to a legis- lative construction of the first ; that it does not include a case •where some of the defendants or plaintififs are non-residents, but one or more reside in the state 'with the opposite party. But it is not to be presumed that congress used the language of the constitution in a different sense from that in which the framers of that instrument used it, or that congress in the second clause intended to provide for cases not covered by tho «onstitutional provision. �The effect of the second clause is to aUow a removal in the class of cases therein described, on the application of one or more plaintifs or defendants, without the concurrence of the others. There is, perhaps, another effect to be given to the second clause. It manifestly provides for the same class of cases as is provided for in the law of 1866. But instead of allowing a severance of the cause, it takes the whole case to this court; and the decisions thus far are to the effect that in this respect it supersedes the law of 1806. �Taking the section together, it would appear that it was the intention of congress, in ail cases where there is a controversy between citizens of different states which is joint and indivisi- ble in its nature, to allow a removal on the application of the party plaintiff or defendant. And when there are several controversies in the same suit that are properly severable in their character, to allow a removal on the application of any one or more plaintiffs or defendants actually interested in any one of such controversies, and who may reside in a state other than the one in which the other party to such controversy resides. �Take a case of a suit brought in this state by a resident thereof against two makers of a joint promissory note, one of whom resides in Wisconsin and the other in Missouri. The action is joint. The interest of the defendants is not severa- ble. If the view I have taken of the law be correct the case may be removed at the instance of the party defendant, both ��� �
