BKRGER V. COM B8 OP DOUGLAS OOUNTY. 28 �defendant in the subjeet of controversy on which the suit iô brought, the non-resident citizen bas the right to go into the fitate court and ask for the removal of the cause into the fed- eral court. I do not think that principle can be maintained, and, therefore, I ehall refuse to take jurisdiction of this case. ���Bebgbb V. CouNTY Com'es op Douglas Couhtt. �(Circuit Court, D. Nebraska. Novembcr, 1880.) �1. Hemovai, — Assignee— AcT of Maech 3, 1875, §} 1, 2.— The first and �second sections of the act of March 3, 1875, should be construed to- gether as in pari materia, and therefore a removal should not l)e allowed in a case where the plaintifl is an assignee, unless his assiguor might have brought suit in a federal court. �2. Samb — FEDERAL Question — Dbchbb op Fbdbhal Coubt.— A suit �to recover taxes erroneously levied by the officiais of a county, under a state statute, does not involve any federal question, although the invalidity of such taxes bas heen eatabliebed by the decree of a fcderal court. — [Ed. �J. M. Woolworth, for plaintiff. ' �J. G. Cowin, for defendant. �McCraby, g. j. The first section of the act of congress of liarch 3, 1875, provides, among other things, as foUows : ""Nor shall any circuit or district court bave cognizance of any suit founded on contract in f avor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover theredn, if no assignment had been made, except in cases of prom- issory note3 negotiable by the law merchant and bills of exchange." �The second section of the same act prbvides for the removal, on the application of either party, of cases brought in any state court involving more than $500, and "in which there shall be a controversy between citizôns of different states. " �In the present case the suit when instituted in the state ■court was a controversy between citizens of this state, but the original plaintiff, after commencing his suit, assigned the ����
