796 FEDERAL REPORTBB, �defendants joining in the application. Possibly it migW be removed upon the application of the non-resident defendant alone. It is not necessaryto decide that question. But sup- pose one defendant to be the maker, residing in Missouri, and the other the indorser, residing in Wisconsin, botb of whom, under the law of this state, may be sued in the same action. Here the obligation and interest of the parties are several, and the controversy between the plaintifï aud maker might be entirely distinct from the one between the plaintiff and indorser, and fully capable of determination as between them without the presence of the other defendant. And the case falls properly under the second clause, and would be removable on the application of tiie defendant who is a resident of Missouri, without joining his co-defendant. Under the law of 1866 the case would proceed in the state court againet the indorser; but under the aet of 1875, whieh does not countenance the severance of causes, the entire case would come to this court. �The removal clause in the judiciary act of 1789 allowed a removal on the application of the defendant where he resided in the state other than the one in which the plaintiff resided, and in which the suit was brought. And the supreme court held the "defendant" here meant the party defendant; and that, where there was more than one, they must ail be residents of another state. Similar constructions bave been placed upon the laws of 1866 and 1867. But the constitution extends the jurisdiction of the circuit courts to controversies between citizens of different states; and the first clause of the second section of the act of 1875 provides for a removal in ail cases by either party, whenever there is a controversy between citizens of different states. �Here is a controversy between citizens of different states.. Here is a controversy, and a vital one, between two citizens of Wisconsin and a citizen of Missouri. And the reasons for conferring jurisdiction upon the federal courts, apply just as strongly to such a case as to one where ail the defendants are citizens of another atate. The fact that, in order to take jurisdiction in such cases, the court must also take along witk ��� �
