SHELDON V. KBOKUK H. L. P. 00. 791 �are not non-residents of the state of Wisconsin, where the plaintiffs reside. �Upon a caref ul examination of the bill of complaint and of the removal statutes, I think the ease cornes within both the clauses of section 2 of the act of 1875. " I have not oome to this conclusion without hesitation, beoause the supreme court have not yet placed a construction upon the act, and be- oause, according to the construction uniformly given to the original removal clause in the judiciary act of September 24, 1789, and subsequent acts amendatory thereof, there would be no right of removal in thia case, for the reason that one of the defendants, Peyton S. Davidson, is a resident of the eame state with the plaintiflfs. Under that act the right of removal did not exist unless all of the defendants were resi- deùts of a state other than the one in which the plaintiffa resided, and it is contended that the same construction is applicable to the law of 1S75. But it cannot fail to be ob- served that the law of 1875 adopts the language of the con- stitution as though it were the intention of congress to widen ont the jurisdiction of the circuit court in removal cases, and make it commensurate with that conferred by that instru- ment. �The law of 1789 provided that if a suit be commenced in any state court * * * by a citizen of the state in which the suit was brought, against the citizen of another state, the defendant might file a petition for removal, etc. �It is manifest that the jurisdiction thus conferred falls far short of the constitutional provision, which extends the juris- diction of the federal courts to all controversies between citi- zens of different states, where the amount or value in dispute exceeds the sum of $500, thus leaving a large reserve of power in the federal courts, which could not be exercised without further legislation by congress. The law of July 27, 1866, provided for a removal on application of a defendant who was a citizen of a state other than the one in which the plaintiff resided, where the suit was one in which there could be a final determination of the controversy, so far as it con- «erued him, without the presence of the other defendants; ��� �
