GREENE V. KLINGER. 695 �aloiig be between citizens of the sarae state.(c) The reraoval of tUe suit as to one defendant removes it as to aM;{d) and all the defendants need nofc join.(e) The right of removal in such cases is on the condition that the case can be wholly determined as to the parties ;(/) so, if three separate actions are brought, and the same defence is made in each, and a judgment in one will determine the whole controversy, they may be removed if the joint amount incontrovertibly exceeds $600.(p') Where flve attachments were sep- arately sued out against one stock of goods, the question of ownership is a single controversy.(A) Where there is no separate controversy between the resident plaintiffs and the non-resident defendants, the cause cannot be re- moved ;(i) 80, if supplementary proceedings are inseparably conneeted with the original judgment or decree, they cannot be removed; but it is otherwise where they are a mere mode of procedure or relief involving an indepeudent controversy with new or different parties.^) — [Ed. �(c) Sheldon v. Keoknk N. W. Une Pack. Co. 1 Hervey v. Illinois M. R. Co. 7 BIss. 103; Chicago �Fed. Rep. 789. V. Gage, 6 BiBS. 467) Osgood v. Chicago, D. & V. R. �(<») Stapleton t. ReynoIdB, fl Obi. Leg. News, Co.6BiBs.330jBoard v.KansasPac.B. C0.4DU1. �33. 277 ; Bnrnham v, D. Jt M. R. Co. 4 DIU 603. �(e) StaplBton T. Reynolds, 9 Chl. I^g. NewB, («■) Andersen v. Gerding, 3 Woods, 487. �33j Davis T. Cook, 9 Nev. 134. (A) Temple v. Smith, 4 Fed. Rep. 392. �(/)Cairaher v. Brennan, 7 Biss. 497 j Eller- (i)Ruble v. Hyde, 3 Morr. Trans. 616 ; afflrm- �man T.New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. 2 Woods, tng 3 Fed. Rep. 330 j Barney v. Latham, 103 U. �120; Smith v. St. Lonis M. L. Ins. Co. 2 Tenn. 8.205. �Ch. «i«i Smith T. McKay, 4 Fed. Rep. 353; (J) Bnford v. Strother, 10 Fed. H«p. 408. ��� �
