80UTHW0RTH V. ADAMS. 5 �faet that it îs a proceeding of which the probate courts of the state had not jurisdiction, the jurisdiction to entertain it being by state statut© vested in the circuit courts of the state, and in view of the broad language of the removal act of 1875, 1 am unable to pereeive why this is not a "suit" in whioh there is "a controversy between oitizens of different states" within the meaning of that act. And this conclusion, it seems to me, is strongly supported by the language of Justice Field in the opinion delivered by him in Gaines v. Fuentes et al., supra. It is true that was in form a suit brought to annul a ■will, as a muniment of title, to restrain the enforcement of a decree admitting it to probate ; but, as said by Justice Bradley in his dissenting opinion, it was a proceeding not merely to set aside the will so far as it affected the defendants in errbr. Its real object was to revoke the probate of a will, and as the case was originally commenced in the state court of Louisiana, and as the question was whether it could be transferred to the federal court, there does not seem to be a very substan- tial distinction upon principle between that case and the cne at bar. The removal in that case was attempted to be made under the act of congress of March 2, 1867, which author- izes removals on the ground of prejudice and local influence. And even that act, Justice Field, speaking for the majority of the court, says, "covered every possible case involving contro- versies between citizens of the state where the suit was brought and citizens of other states, if the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeded the sum of $500. It mattered not whether the suit was brought in a state court of limited or general jurisdiction. The only test was, did it involve a controversy betweeen citizens of the state and citizens of other states, and did the matter in dispute exceed a specified amount? And a cœitroversy was involved, in the sense of the statute, ■whenever any property or daim of the parties, capable of pecuniary estimation, was the subject of litigation, and was presented by the pleadings for judicial determination." An examination of the opinion will show that jurisdiction was Bustained as well upon the provisions of the act authorizing the removal as upon the point that the action was one to annul the will as a muniment of title; for the court say, ����
