IN BE lOWA & MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION CO. 405 �facto removes the cause. Osgood v. R. Co. 2 Cent. L. J. 273; Mer- chants', etc., Bank v. Wkeeler, 13 Blatchf . 218 ; Connor v. Scott, 4 Dill. 242; Article on Eemoval of Causes, 2 Cent. L. J. 730, and cases cited. �It bas been siiggested that this proceeding was not a suit in the state court within the meaning of the acts oi congress, and therefore not removable. I am, however, of the opinion that the petition of inter- vention is in its nature a suit wherein the intervenors seek relief as against the defendants therein named, and the right of removal in such a case is not affected by the fact that the state court had ap- pointed a receiver who was proceeding to wind up the affairs of the corporation. Os^ooti v. E. Co. 2 Cent. L. J. 273. If -we assume that the subject matter of the controversy was in the possession of the state court, the right of removal still remains, as was distinctly held by the supreme court in Kern v. Hitidekoper, 103 U. S. 485, (see pp. 490, 491.) �The motion to remand must be overruled. �The question of the right of the intervenors to an injunction to restrain further proceedings until there can be a hearing upon its merits, was not discussed by counsel at the hearing, but I suppose the granting of that application follows as a matter of course. There would be no propriety in our entertaining jurisdiction of the case made by the intervening petition, and refusing to restrain the receiver from disposing of the estate and paying the debts now alleged to be fraudulent. A temporary injunction may therefore issue to restrain the defendant named in the petition of intervention, as therein prayed, until further order of the court, upon the intervenors giving bond with the usual condition, in the sum of $2,000, with sure- ties to be approved by the clerk. ��� �
