6 94 FBDEBAIi BEPOBIEB. �either one or more of the co-parties may petition for a removal,(«i) although the party applying obtained his interest in the property by a con\eyance made for the express purpose of conferring jurisdiction; but the conveyance must be hotia flde.{n) Under this clause each individual plaintiii must be a citizen of a state different from that of each individual defendant. (o) The case may be removed where the parties applying have interpleaded,(^) as where inter- venors charge fraud and want of jurisdiction. (g) Either one or more may apply for a removal, although other parties are citizens of the same state with those on the opposite side.(r) ihe parties may be so transposed on opposite sidea according to their real interests, without regard to their former position on the record, as to effect a determination of their rights.(s) There may be a removal of that part of a cause which concerns the original parties, notwith- standing that a state statute may declare that the trial as to certain other parties cannot be separated from the trial of the main cause. (i) Where the action was by a citizen of the state against several defendants, and the circuit court had jurisdiction from the amount in controversy, any one of the defend- ants may apply for a removal if the matter can be fully deterniined between them ;(m) but the controversy must be wholly between them \{v) and the whole suit must be removed ;(w) for, if net wholly between them, it canuot be removed although the controversy of the defendant could be disposed of sep- arately.(a;) The suit may be removed although it does not arise under the con- stitution, treaties, or laws of the United States •,{y) and irrespective of its quality as equitable or legal ;(0) or although there may be other controversies in the suit between other parties ;(a) or, although the controversy removed is only incidental, as the removal takes the principal controversy and all other con- troversies to the circuit court ;(6) or although one of the controversies taken �solldated railroad companles generally, consult (m) McLean v. Chicago & St. P. R Co. 16 �Ohio & M. K. Co. V. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286 ; Balt. Blatchf. 319 j .Taylor v. Hockefeller, 6 Fed. Hep. �«. O. R. Co. T. Harrls, 12Wall.65; Chicago^ N. 22U; Stapleton v. Reynolds, 9 Chi. Leg. News, �W. R. Co. T. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Williams v. 33; Evans v. Faxon, 10 Fed. Rep. 312 ; Hervey y. �Missouri, K. & T. K. Co. 3 Dill. !i67 ; Marsliall v. Illinois & Midland R. Co. 7 Biss. 1(13 ; Uirardey t. �Balt. t O. R. Co. 16 How. 314 ; Sume v. Gallahue's Mooie, 3 Woods, 397; lirst Piesb. Soc, of G. B. v. �Adm'rs, 12 Gratt. 668; Chicago & INT. W. R. Co. v. Goodrich T. Co. 7 Fed. Rep. 267. �Chicago & P. R. Co. 6 Biss. 219; Mlnot v. p'iiila. (») Evans v. Faxon, 10 Fed. Kep. 312; Walsh �W. &B. R. Co. 2 Abb. (0.S.)323. v. Memphls, C. & N. W. R. Co. 6 Fed. Rep. 797; �(m) Smith T. MoKay, 4 Fed. Rep. 363. McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago R. Co. 16 blatchf. �(n) Hoyt V. Wright, 4 Fed. Rep. 168. 309; EUermaD v. New Orleans, M. S; T. R. Co. 2 �(o)Burke V. Flood.l Fed. Rep. 641; S.C.4Pac. Woods, 120; Smith v. St. Louis M. L. Ins. Co. 2 �C. L. J.601; Van Brunt v. Corbin, 14 Blatchf. Tenn. Ch. 6B6j First Presb. Soc. of G. B. v. Good- �496; In re Frazier, 10 Chic. L. N. 390; Ruble v. rlch T. Co. 7 Fed. Rep. 257. �Hyde, 3 Fed. Rep. 330. (w) Carraher v. Brennan, 7 Biss. 497 j Board v. �(p) Burdick v. Peterson, 6 Fed. Rep. 840; Kan. Pac.R. R.4D111. 277; Burchv. DesMolnesit �Tower v. Ficklln, 60 Qa. 373; Healy v. Provost, St. P. H. Co. 46 lowa, 449; Barney t. Latham, 11 �25 Int. Rev. Ree. 240. See Postmaster General v. Law Rep. (N. S.) 93; Chicago v. Gage, 6 Biss. 467. �Cross, 4 Wash. C. C. 326 ; Martin v. Taylor, Id. 1. (x) Glrardey v. Moore, 3 Woods, 397, �{q) Boone v. lowa & M. Const. Co. 10 Fed. Eop. (v) 1-ow v. Wayne Co. Sav. Bk. 14 Blatchf. 449. �401; In re lowa Si M. Const. Co. 10 Fed. Rep. 401. (») Ketchum v. Black River Lum. Co. 4 Fed. �(0 Giraruey v. Moore, 3 Woods, 397; Nat. Rep. 139. �Union Bank v. Dodge, 26 Int. Rev. Rec. 304. Se* (a) Hervey v. IlUnola M. R. Co. 7 Biss. 103 ; �Sbepard t. K. N. L. Pack. Co. 12 CM. Leg. News, Bybee v. Hawkett, 5 Fed. Rep. 1 ; Stevens v. Rich. �220. ardson, 9 Fed. Rep. 191 ; Evans v. Faxou, 10 Fed. �(s)Bnrke V. Flood, IFed. Rep.B41. Rep. 312. �(,t) EHerman v. New Orlean» M. * T. E. Co. 2 (») Farmers' L. t T. Co. v. C, P. Si S. K. Co. 12 �Woods, 120. Chl. Leg. News, 65 ��� �
