S92 ÎEDEBAIi EEPORTEE. �only practical resuit would be to add to the ordinary compli- cations of a trial those -whieh would arise by retrying at the same time a former controversy also. The motion for a new trial is denied. ���Temple and others ». Smith and othera, �[Oireuit Court, D., Nebratka. November 11, 1880.) �1. Eemoval-^Assionment of Claimb. — A defendant cannot «cquire the �right to have his cause removed to the federal courts by the purchase of the interests of his co-defendants.* �2. SaMB — CoNTBO'VaKST — SEVBRÀIi CrBDITORS — CONTEMPORAKBOUB At- �TACHMBNT8. — Five scveral attachments were sued out on flve distinct claLms, and were ail levied at the same time upon a certain stock of goods. Eeld, that the controversy as to the ownership of the stock of goods was a single controversy between the pJaîntifls on one aide, and ail the attachmeut credito» ut^on the other aide. �Motion to Eemand. �, for plaintiffs. �, for defendants. �McCeaey, C. J. We have consîdered the motion to remand. This was a suit brought in the state court — a replevin against the sherifï of Saline county to recover possession of a stock of goods which the sheriff held under five several writs of attach- ment. The sheriff appeared in the state court, and moved to substitute the judgment creditors as the real parties in interest, and that motion was sustained. Two of these judg- ment creditors are citizens of this state, one of them is a citizen of lowa. After the suhtitution of the judgment cred- itors as defendants, the lowa firm appeared in the state court and moved to be substituted as sole defendant, alleging that they had become the purehasers of the claims. There ia nothing'in the record to show that motion was acteduponby the state court, but immediately upon ita being filed the non- �*See Hoyt v. Wright, 4 Fed. Rbp. 163. ����
