BUEDICK V. PBTEJRSON. 848 �■whether plaintiff, defendant, or intervenor, may remove a cause by showing the necessary facts. It followB from this that as to an intervenor it is enough to show the eitizenship of the parties at the time of his intervention, for, as to him, that is the commencement or bringing of the suit. �But the above-cited section of the aot of 1875 further pro- vides that when, in any suit mentioned in the section, "there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizenc of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, tben either one or more of the plaintiff« or defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit to the circuit court of the United States for the proper dis- trict." This clause very clearly applies to a controversy between the original plaintiff and an intervenor who may be brought in in the course of the litigation and before triad. It is enough if the controversy described is in the suit ; there is no requirement that it shall be between the original parties. The intervenor became a defendant within the meaning of this clause, and since there was very clearly a controversy between him and the plaintiff, in which the original defend- ant had no interest, aud which could be fully determined as between them, the right of removal existed. �If the petition for removal bad not been filed until after the intervention, it would, upon the principle of the cases here- tofore decided by this court, have been necessary to aver the eitizenship of the parties at the time of the intervention; but inasmuch as the petition to intervene and the petition for removal were £led at one and the same time, I am of the opinion that the use of the present tense in the latter was suffioient. �It is not necessary to determine whether the motion ib in time, (having been made after judgment,) since, independ- ently of that question, it must be overruled. So ordered. ��� �
