26i2 FBDEBAL REPORTEE. �parties in mterest in the prosecution of the suit, the eontro- versy is as much between the defendant and the plaintiff Society as between the defendant and the plaintiff insurance Company; and therefore the controversy is not so completely between citizens of different states that, when the questions on which they are opposed are decided, the whole controversy between the real adversary parties will be thereby deter- mined. Dillon on Eemovals, supra. On the argument it was contended that as, by the ansWer of the defendant, issues a,re raised touching the issuance of the policy of insurance by the plaintiff insurance company, the amount of the insurance, the payment thereof, and the assignment of the claim of the plaintiff society to its co-plaintiff against the defendant to the extent of the insurance, the questions thus raised make a controversy between the plaintiff insurance company and the defendant in which the plaintiff society is not interested. But those, I think, are rather branches or incidents of the actual controversy, than the vital issues which constitute the con- troveray ; and, moreover, it is more than questionable whether they are questions in which the plaintiff and defendant, who are citizens of different states, are alone interested. �Cases having a bearing upon the question of the right of removal, as it arises in the case at bar, are Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 4 Fed. Ebp, 876 ; and Bailey v. New York Savings Bank, 2 Fed. Eep. 14. �On the whole, my opinion is that there is not presentea here, within the meaning of the second clause of section 2 of the act of 1875, a controversy which is wholly between citi- zens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them without the presence of the plaintiff, who is a citizen of the same state with the defendant. �Since the foregoing opinion was written, the decisions of the supreme court of Wisconsin in Pratt v. Radford, Wis. Leg. News, May 5, 1881,* and of the supreme court of the United States in Bariiey v. Latham, Chi. Leg. News, May 21, 1881, have been promulgated. In the first-named case it is held that in a suit like that at bar the insurance company and �*S. C. 8 K. W. Rep. 502, ��� �
