690 FKDBRAL BEPOBTEE. �therein there 13 a controversy wholly between citizena of different states which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the plaintiffs or the defendants actually interested in such controversy may, on complying with the reqnirements of the statute, remove the entire suit. �In these cases under consideration it appears that at the time of application for removal the plaintiffs and all of the defendants, except Morgan C. Hamilton, were citizens of the state of Texas, and that defendant Hamilton was a citizen of New York. It further appears that the suits were actions of trespass to try title to real estate wherein defendant Morgan C. Hamilton ia the grantor and warantor of title to all the other defendants. �Section 4788 of the Revised Statutes of the state provides that — �" When a party is sued for lands the real owner or warranter may make himself or may be made a party defendant in the suit, and shall be entitled to make such defence as if he had been the original defendant in the action." �Section 4811 of the same provides that — �"Any final judgment rendered in any action for the recovery of real estate, hereafter commenced, shall be conclusive as to the title or right of possession established in such action upon the party against whom it is recovered," etc. �Now, as Hamilton was a party entitled to defend and liable to be included by the judgment rendered, there must have been a contro- versy between him and other parties to the suit. It is easy to see that that controversy was as to whether Hamilton had acquired from his grantor a just title as owner of the property sued for, and was bound to warrant and defend this title of the other defendants. That controversy was between him and citizens of a different state, as all the other parties were citizens of Texas. It was wholly between him and citizens of a different state, as no other defendant appears to have been interested in the controversy except adversely to him. It seems, also, to be clear that the controversy between Hamilton and citizens of a different state was one which could be fully determined as between them. It further is shown that there was a controversy between Hamilton and the other defendants, all citizens of a different state from Hamilton, because it appears that under the statute Ham- ilton was brought into the case and made a party defendant on the motion of the other defendants. �Counsel very earnestly insists that the plaintiff bas no controversy with Hamilton, and asks no judgment nor relief against him. This ��� �
