BMITH ». HQBTON, 271f �defendant Mangles is a citizen of the state of New Jersey. It prays for the removal of the suit. It does not refer to any particular statute. It does not allege that the suit is one in which there can be a final determination of the controversy 80 far as concems any one or more of the defendants as par- ties in the cause. Nor does it allege that there is, in the suit, a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them. To have the case considered as one removable under the second branch of section 2 of the act of 1875, or under any subdivision of section 630 of the Revised Statutes, the peti- tion must set forth the jurisdictional facts. This petition alleges only that the controversy in the suit — �" Is between citizens of different gtctes ; that is to say, between the fthove- named Bridget Smith, who is, and was at the commencement of this action, a citizen of the state of Kew York, and the abbve-named defendants, William Horton, who resides in the state of Connecticut, John F.' W. Mangles, who is a citizen of the state of New Jersey, and Amos K. Olark^ • a citizen of the state of Kew York." �This case, therefore, must be considered as raising only the question whether a removal of it can be had on the peti- tion aled under the first branch of section 2 of the.act of 1S75. It is clear, under the decision of the supreme court in Meyer v. Construction Go. 100 D. S. 467, that it cannot. Although all the defendants unite in the petition, they are not all of them alleged to be of a different citizenship from the plaintiff. �The motion to remand made by the plaintiff, is, for the foregoing reasous, grauted, mth«ost8 to be taxed. ��� �
