840 FEDERAL REPORTER. �mine the question either way according to its judgment, and not acBording to ours. If we interfere to determine it in advance, by preliminary injunction, we are plainly attempt- ing to control the action of that court. It is no ans^wer to say that we do not enjoin the court, but only the assignee. It may often happen that an injunction to restrain public officers, or private persons, if granted and enforced, will, in eflfect, tie the hands of the court under whose orders they are to act. If, for example, a party subject to the iurisdiction of astatepourtis enjoined by a federal court from obeying the orders of the former, this is an interference with the court as well as with the individual. And the difficulty is not less- ened — it is rather increased — by issuing the injunction in advance of the order of the state court, but after it bas pos- session of the subject. �It follows that application for relief by injunction, upon the grounds stated in the bill, must be addressed to the state court, which bas possession of the property, control over the several daimants, and power either to order or forbid delivery to the assignee. ���BuBDioK V. Petebson. �{Circuit Court, D. lowa. , 1880.) �1. RiGHT OF RbmovaIi bt Intbh-vbnob. �Any one coming into a case by petition of intervention has the same riglit of removal as an original party plaintifE or defendant. �2. Petition for Removal — Avehment of Citizbnship. �The petition for removal of such intervenor, if flled simultaneousiy with his petition of intervention, is sufflcient if it aver the citizenship of the parties in the present tense; for, as to the intervenor, the filiug of his petition of intervention is the commencement of the suit. �Motion to Eemand. �Action of ejectment, instituted in February, 1876, by the plaintiff, G. W. Burdick, against the defendant, John Peter- son, in the district court of Winneshiek coimty, lowa. The ��� �
