79S FEDERAL REPORTBB. �"WJbether, since the act of 1876, the right of removal es- tends to all cases in -which some of the necessary or indis- pensable defendants are citizens of the same state with the plaintiffs, or some of them, is no doubt a very important ques- tion, not yet deeided. It does not, if the rule of construction applied to the judiciary act of 1789, and theacts of 1866 and 1867, is applicable to the latter act. But the latter act, for the first time, adopts the language of the constitution, and seems to have been intended to confer on the circuit coiarts ail the jurisdiction which, under the constitution, it was in the power of congress to bestow. �"Certainly the case mentioned would be a controversy between citizens of different states, and the reasons which induced the framers of the constitution to give jurisdiction to the federal courts of controversies between citizens of differ- ent states apply as strongly to it as they do to a case in which ail the defendants are citizens of a state other than that in which the plaintiffs are citizens; and if that instrument is to be construed so as to carry ont its intent, it would seem the question should be answered in the affirmative." �It is a subject of regret that these questions, of so much daily interest to the profession, should not, before this, have been put at rest by the only authority finally competent to deal with them. But, until the supreme court shall have placed a construction upon the statute, the opinion of two judges of such eminence and ability is entitled to very great weight. �The case will be docketed in this court. �NoTS. — See Ruckman v. Palisade Land Go. ante, 367 ; Bti/rke y. Flood, ante, 541 ; Buckman v. Buckman, ante, 687. ��� �
