263 FESEBAIi BEFOBTSB. �ute of New York, and that thus there is but one suit, tùough there are two controversies in it, and that the whole suit is to be removed, and that either party may remove it, and that the counter claim necessarily "must tend in some way to diminish or defeat the plaintiffs' recovery,"it follows that the whole suit is removed, inoluding ail the issues, by the com- plaint, the answer and counter claim, and the reply. �The case of West v. Awrora City, 6 Wall. 139, is not in point. The facts there were not ai ail like the faets in thia case, and it arose under a different statute. �In McLean v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co. 16 Blatchf. 309, con- struction was given to section 2 of the act of 1875, to the effect that a suit, where the requisite citizenahip for removal did not exist when the suit was brought, might become remov- able by the occurrence of the requisite citizenship during the pendency of the suit. Under that ruling it must be held that it is not necessary that the requisite amount in dispute should appear to have existed when the suit was brought. After proceedings for removal are completed, a party cannot be deprived of his right, by any action of the state court or of the other party, in redueing the amount appearing to be in dispute. Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198. But there is nothing to prevent a state court from allowing an insufficient amount in dispute to become an adequate amount, under the act of 1875, or prevent such insufficient amount from becom- ing an adequate amount under that act by the operation of the statute of New York and the lawful acts of the parties to the suit thereunder. �The motion to remand the suit and for other relief is de- nied. ����
