TEMPLE V. SHITn, S93 �resident defendants of lowa filed a petition to remove the cause to this court, alleging that they had been purchasers and assignees of the other defendants. The motion is now made to remand by the plaintiffs. �I bave already decided that an assignee who cbuld not originally sue in this court cannot remove the cause from the state court. That disposes of this case, except so far as the claims of the lowa parties, which they held originally, are concerned. They owned one of the five claims upon which this attachment was sued out, independently, — a claim which was in controversy in this case. It is now insisted, under the second section, that, if the whole case cannot be removed, so much as related to the claim of these non-resident parties may be removed. The original controversy here is between the lowa attaching creditors and these plaintiffs, but it is not wholly between them. The controversy is as to the owner- ship of this stock of goods, and that is a controversy between the plaintiffs on one side, and ail the attachment creditors on the other side. It cannot be said to be a controversy be- tween the plaintiffs and any one of the creditors. It follows that, if this cause should be removed, there might be con- flicting judgments upon this same subject. �There is another dif&culty. The attachments were ail levied at the same time, and they are to be paid out of the proceeds of the property. How can this court confer with, or act with, any court in making any pro rata disposition of this f und ? I do not see how it would be possible to get along in that way. Even if both courts should sustain the attachment, we could not be inquiring what the state court had done. �I do not think the controversy is one which can be fuUy determined between the lowa parties and other claimants^ and the motion to xemand is snstained. ����
