270 rZDEBAIi BSPOBTBB. �'" 6mith ». HoBTON and others. �(Gir mit Court, S. D. New York. February 12, 1881.) �1. Bemoval— Petition— Allegation op Jurisdictionai, Facts. �A cause ie not removable under the act oi March 3, 1875, or section 639 of the Revised Statutes, unless the petition for removal sets f orth the jurisdictionai facts. �2. Bame—Samb— Allegation of Citizenshif. �In a suit against copartners for damages for injury to the person, a removal carinot be had under the flrst clause of section 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, unless the petition alleges that all of the defendants are of different citizenship from the plaintiil.-- [Ed. �F. W, Fitzgerald, Jr., lot plaintifP. �G. S. Simpkins, for defendants. �Blatchfoed, C. J. This suii was brought in a court of the Htate against the defendants, as copartners, to recover $8,000 as damages for injury to the person of the plaintiff. The complaint alleges • �That the plaintiff was passing along the sidewalk in front of the defendants' place of business, where they buy and sell flour; that the defendants were, at the time, taking barrels of flour intotheir said store from a truck standing nearthe curbstone, and in front of said store ; that they obstructed the sidewalk and made it dangerous and created a nui- sance, in that they allowed a person on said truck to negligently roll bar- rels of flour down a pair of skids ; that a barre) struck the plaintiff while she was passing between the store and the truck, and nsing due care ; and that she was thereby irreparably and permanently injured in her person. �AU three of the defenda^its in time filed, in the state court, a petition for the removal .of ^the suit into this court. The petition is framed exclusively under the first branch of sec- tion 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 470,) and not at all under the second branch of that section, nor under any subdivision of section 639 of the Revised Statutes. It alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of New York; that the defendant Horton resides in the state of Connecticut, not that he is a citizen of that state, or that he is an alien or a citizen of any state; that the defendant Clark is a citizen of the state of New York; and that the ��� �
