8MITH V. JI'kAT. 35 S �wholly between citizens of different staies, and •whieh can be fuUy determined as between tbciû, but the existence of other plaintiffs or defendants who are not necessary to such con- troversy. We understand this to be conceded by bbth sidea. The real question is wbether such other plaintiffs or defendants shall be citi&ens of different stateS from the other co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. The plaintiff iti this case insists that, inas-' Dauch as ail of the defendants are citizens of the state of Mich- igan, they must ail unite in the petition, and that it ceuld only be upon the hypothesis that Johnson, whose presence is not necessary to this controversy, is a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff. That would entitle one or more of the other defendants to remove the case under the second clause. On the other hand, it is claimed that the first clause only applies where ail of the defendants are necessary parties to the controversy, in which case if is admitted that ail must join ; but that, if there is a defendant who is not a necessary party to this controversy, the other defendants, or either of them, may petition for the removal, although such non-inter- ested defendant may be a citizen of the same state with them-- selves. It is very probable thatj in enacting this section, the legislature had in mind the existence of defendants whose citizeuship would prevent a removal of the case by the other defendants;, but' the languageof the act bears no such cori- struction. �The fact that the more interested defendant shall be a citizen of the same Btate with the plaintiff, or of aiiy other state than the other defendants, is nowhere Buggested in' that clause, and any such construction would require us to interpo- late words which are not there found. �Such a restriction is found in the removal act of 1867, (Eev. St. § 639, subd. 2.) By this subdivision a removal is provided for when the suit is by a citizen of the state wherein such suit is brought against a citizen of the same state and a citizen of another state, in which case it may be removed, as against such citizen of another state, upon bis petition; if, so far ae it relates to him, the suit is brought for the purpose of ����
