dicial Code. Even diverse citizenship does not give jurisdiction in such case.11

SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES

114. The federal jurisdiction by removal from the state courts extends to suits by the United States.

As the federal courts are given original jurisdiction of these suits by section 24 of the Judicial Code, it follows that the nonresident defendant could remove such a suit into the federal court if brought in a state court, and that, too, independent of the amount involved, as the federal courts have original jurisdiction of suits by the United States, independent of the amount involved.

41 Symonds v. St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. (C. C.) 192 Fed. 353; Strauser v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (D. C.) 193 Fed. 293; Saiek v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (C. C.) 193 Fed. 303; Ullrich v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (D. C.) 193 Fed. 768; Hulac v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (D. C.) 194 Fed. 747; Stafford v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (D. C.) 202 Fed. 605. Contra: Van Brimmer v. Texas & P. R. Co. (C. C.). 190 Fed. 394. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. §§ 4, 5.

CHAPTER XV

THE DISTRICT COURT (Continued)-JURISDICTION BY REMOVAL (Continued)

115.

Controversies between Citizens of Different States.

116. Devices to Prevent Removal.

117. Controversies between Citizens of the Same State Claiming Lands under Grants of Different States.

118. Controversies between Citizens of a State and Foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

121.

122.

Removal on Ground of Prejudice or Local Influence.

Removal because of State Denial of Equal Civil Rights.

123. Removal of Suits against Officers or Persons Enforcing the Internal Revenue Laws.

CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIF

FERENT STATES

115. The twenty-fourth section of the Judicial Code gives the federal courts jurisdiction of suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, and in which the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000; and the twenty-eighth section gives the right of removal in such cases. This is much the most frequent ground of removal in actual practice. In order to give the right of removal, the requisites must concur which have been discussed in connection with the original jurisdiction of such suits.1

If the suit, for instance, is not such a suit as the federal court could entertain under its general equity jurisdiction,

1 Ante, p. 218.

though the state court could entertain it, like a suit by a simple-contract creditor to set aside a conveyance which could be brought in a state court by virtue of a state statute, then the federal courts cannot take jurisdiction, but in such case would have to remand.2

In this class of cases, also, if the court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case, it may be removed, though the suit is not brought in the district of the defendant's residence."

As to suits brought in a state court in a district where neither plaintiff nor defendant resided, the earlier decisions preponderated in favor of the doctrine that the defendant could remove such a case, on the theory that the defendant alone was interested in the place of suit; but later cases have established the doctrine that such a case is not removable by defendant without the consent or waiver of the question by plaintiff.*

Removal as Affected by Assignment

This clause limiting removable cases to those cases of which the courts are given original jurisdiction has wrought one other important change in the law. The previous acts did not have such a clause, and hence it was held under them that the clause forbidding the assignee to bring suit unless his assignor could also sue applied only to cases originally instituted in the federal courts, and did not pre

2 SCOTT v. NEELY, 140 U. S. 106, 11 Sup. Ct. 712, 35 L. Ed. 358; Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451, 13 Sup. Ct. 883, 977, 37 L. Ed. 804; Anderson v. Sharp (C. C.) 189 Fed. 247; ante, pp. 224, 225. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 102; Cent. Dig. §§ 218-224. 3 MEXICAN NAT. R. CO. v. DAVIDSON, 157 U. S. 201, 15 Sup. Ct. 563, 39 L. Ed. 672. See “Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (KeyNo.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 32, 33.

4 In re Wisner, 203 U. S. 449, 27 Sup. Ct. 150, 51 L. Ed. 264; In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 28 Sup. Ct. 585, 706, 52 L. Ed. 904, 14 Ann. Cas. 1164; Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, 31 Sup. Ct. 324, 55 L. Ed. 252, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 392; Puget Sound Sheet Metal Works v. Great Northern R. Co. (D. C.) 195 Fed. 350. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 32, 33.

HUGHES FED. PR.(2D ED.)-21

vent the removal of such cases when originally instituted in the state courts. But the above change in the law has placed original suits and removable cases on the same footing, so that now a suit by an assignee in a state court cannot be removed into the federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship unless it could have been originally instituted in the federal court."

In discussing the original jurisdiction of the courts, it has been seen that all the parties on each side must be capable of suing or being sued. This same principle applies to cases removable on the ground of diverse citizenship."

It is also true in removal as in original cases that this principle only applies to necessary parties, and that the joinder of nominal or unnecessary parties will not defeat the right of removal.'

DEVICES TO PREVENT REMOVAL

116. The removal of a case may be prevented by various devices, as by assigning the cause of action to a plaintiff incompetent to sue in the federal courts, or by so framing the suit as to make parties defendants who would defeat the jurisdiction; and such devices are successful in the absence of bad faith.

5 MEXICAN NAT. R. CO. v. DAVIDSON, 157 U. S. 201, 15 Sup. Ct. 563, 39 L. Ed. 672; Board of Com'rs of Delaware County v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 10 Sup. Ct. 399, 33 L. Ed. 674. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 29-31.

6 Ante, p. 255; Gage v. Carraher, 154 U. S. 656, 14 Sup. Ct. 1190, 25 L. Ed. 989; Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336, 26 L. Ed. 563. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 29; Cent. Dig. § 69.

7 Patterson v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 111 Fed. 262; Bacon v. Rives, 106 U. S. 99, 1 Sup. Ct. 3, 27 L. Ed. 69; Ex parte State of Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. 581, 52 L. Ed. 876; Lawrence v. Southern Pac. Co. (C. C.) 165 Fed. 241; ante, p. 256. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 31; Cent. Dig. § 71.

8

It has been seen in the previous discussion that devices to confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts are forbidden by the law. It is, however, a rule which does not work both ways. Devices to prevent such jurisdiction are frequently successful.

In Oakley v. Goodnow an Iowa corporation which had a claim against a citizen of New York transferred it to another citizen of New York under an agreement that the latter should act as trustee in collecting the fund, and account to the assignor for it. The defendant (the law not then limiting the right of removal to nonresident defendants) attempted to remove the case to the federal court, claiming that this was a mere device to defeat jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, held that it was a device which accomplished its purpose, and that his only relief was in the state court.

It is not an uncommon practice to join other defendants for the purpose of defeating jurisdiction.

In personal injury suits, for instance, against nonresident corporations, it is not uncommon for a plaintiff who may desire to prevent removal to join with the corporation. itself the employé who was responsible for the accident, if his citizenship is the same as that of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances the right of removal would be defeated if the cause of action asserted is bona fide, for the plaintiff has the right, in an honest discretion, to bring his suit this way; and this is true though the parties joined might have different defenses, for the right of removal is judged independent of the defense, and the court has no right to dictate to the plaintiff how he should bring his suit.10

8 Ante, p. 285.

See "Removal of

118 U. S. 43, 6 Sup. Ct. 944, 30 L. Ed. 61. Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 35; Cent. Dig. §§ 77, 78.

10 Charman v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (C. C.) 105 Fed. 449; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245, 20 Sup. Ct. 854, 44 L. Ed. 1055; Person v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (C. C.) 118 Fed. 342. Compare Helms v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 120 Fed. 389. See "Removal of Causes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 36; Cent. Dig. § 79.