692 FEDERAL REPORTER. ���NOTE. �SuiTS Remotable. The suits which are removable under this section are suits of a civil nature, at law or in equity, and it does not extend to criininal cases.(o) The fact that the claim is legal as distinguished from equitable has no bearing on the question o£ the right of removaI.(6) So, where an action comnienced in a state court in which the distinction between legal and equit- able procedure is done away with, is removed, it is removed to that side of the court where appropriate relief can be obtained.(c) The suit must be a suit within the meaning of the state law ■,{d) and where there is no contro- versy the suit cannot be removed,(e) as where default has been made.(/) �The jurisdictional limitation as to the amount in controversy has reference to the sum in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. (.9) The claim of the plaintiff and not the couuter-claim of the defendant should fix the amount in dispute ;(ft) and the petition should afflrmatively state the amount ;( j) and if the amount in dispute exceeds $500, exclusive of costs, at the time of the application, the case is removable, although the requisite amount did not exist when the suit was commenced.(.y) The sections of the statute of 1875 should be construed together, and the remedy should not be allowed, where the plaintiff is assignee, unless the assignee might have brought suit in the federal court ;(fe) so, a party cannot acquire the right to remove by purehasing the interest of a co-defendant.(Z) �Whenever the decision of a case depends upon the construction of the con- stitution of the United States, an act of congress, or treaty, the case may be removed if the matter in dispute exceeds $500.(wi) A suit arises whenever upon the whole record there is a controversy involving the construction of either;(«) but they must be directly and not incidentally called in ques- tion ;(o) and if a suit involves a federal question it may be removed, although other questions founded on principles of general law may be involved [(p) and although a state is plaintiff ;{q) and the citizenship of the parties has nothing to do with the question. (r) If the plaintiff is a corporation, created by an act of congress, the case arises under the laws of congress ;(s) but it is otherwise in the case of a national bank.(<) Cases involving questions under the bank- �(œ) Rison v. Cribbs, 1 Di!I. 184 ; Green v. U. S. (m) Gold Washing & W. Co. T. Keyes, 96 U. S. �e Wall. 663; State v. Grand Trunk Ry. 3 Fed. 199; Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Ped. Rep. 6&0; �Rep. 887. Coniior v. Scott, 4 Dill. 242; New Orleans, M. & �(6) Ketchum v. Black River Lumber Co.4 Fed. T. H. Co. v. Misrf.ssippi, 102 U. S. 135. �Rep. 139. (w) Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. '.^64; Mayor of �(c) Benediet v. Williams. 10 Fed. Rep. 208. N. Y. v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 ; Tennessee T. Davis, �(d) In re lowa & M. Const. Co. 6 Fed. Rep. 799. 100 U. S. 275 ; Van .■illen v. Atchison, C. & P. R. le) Shiimway v. Chicago & lowa R. Co. 4 Fed. Co. 3 Fed. Ecp, 545; Hatch v. Wallamet Iron B. �Ilep, 385: Fashnacht v. Frank, 23 Wall. 416. Co. U Law Rep. (N. S.) 630 �(/) Ben ian v. Chetwood, 9 Fed. 678. (o) State v. Bowen, S Kicli. (N. S.) 382. �(ff) N.Y. SilkManufgCo. v. Second Nat. Bank. (p) Connor v. Scott, 4 Dlll. 242. �10 Fed. Hep. 204. (c) New Orleans, M. & T. B. Co. T. State, 13 �(A) Falls Wire Manuf'g Co. v. Broderick, 6 Fed. Chi. Leg. New.i, 1)3. �Rep. 654. Contra, Clarkson v. Manson, i Fed (r) Wilder v. Union Nat. Bank, 12 Chl. Leg. �Kep. 257. News, 76. �(<) Keltli T. Levi, 2 Fed. Rep. 743. («) Union Pac. R. Co. v. Macomb, 1 Ped. Rep. �(j) Claikson v. Manson, 4 Fed. Rep. 257. 799. �(fc) Berger v. Douglas Co. 5 Fed. Hep. 23. (t) Pettilou Y Noble, 7 Bias. 449. �<0 Templ* T. Smith, 4 Fed. Rep. 392. ��� �
