«UBLS P. HTDS. 831 �The suît was brought by the plaintiffs, a firm doîng busi- ness in, and citizens of, the state of Minnesota, against seven defendants, three of them citizens of the state of Wis- consin, two citizens of the state of lowa, and one Henry Eowell, a citizen of Minnesota. The citizenship of one de- fendant, Hunting, is not given in the petition, but it appears by an affidavit in the record that he is not a citizen of the state of Minnesota. �The plaintiffs seek to recover an alleged indebtedness due from the defendants jointly as copartners. To sustain this cause they must prove a partnership between ail the defend- ants, whieh is denied by those not citizens of the same state with the plaintiffs, and also by Eowell, the def^ndsjat who is a citizen of the same state. �Eowell is not a nominal party to this suit, and, being a citizen of the same state with the plaintiffs, the controversy about which the suit was instituted in the state court is not between citizens of one or more states on one side, and citi- zens of other states on the other side. �In order that a suit may be removed by either party, under the provision of section 2, in the aet of 1875, above quoted, ail the persons forming the party on one side of the contro- versy must be citizens of states different from those of which the other party are citizens. �In other words, as I understand the act of 1875, the change made by the clause is that the parties to the contro- versy, without reference to their position in the pleadings as plaintiffs or defendants, may be arranged on opposite sides ; and if on one side each individual is a citizen of a different state from those of which the individuals on the other side are citizens, then the suit may be removed. Such is not the case here. See Burke v. Flood, 1 Fed. Eep. 541 ; Myer r. Delaware E. B. Construction Ce, October term 1879, U. S. Sup. et., 12 Chicago Leg. News, 135. �It is not necessary to consider the other point raised on the argument. �Motion granted. ����
