10 FEDERAL REPORTER. �authorizes the removal and gives jurisdiction to the circuit court, must, in some way or sense, be the main or principal one, this is a plain case for removal. For instance, if there is any principal controversy in this case, it is as to whether the debts alleged to be due the plaintifï and sundry of the defendants, citizens of Oregon, are secured by a vendor's and other lien upon this property, and upon one side of -which are the defendants Hawkett and the Eobinsons, citizens of Cali- fornia, and on the other the plaintiff, and the rest of the defendants except Haymond and Magruder; and as to them, if the liens are found not to exist, the controversy is fully determined without afifecting them, while if the conclusion is otherwise, they ai'e only incidentally interested in the con- trovery by reason of their interest in the surplus, if any, after the satisfaction of said debts and the discharge of the liens. They are not actually parties to this controversy, however they may be interested in the resuit of it. Donohoe v. Mariposa Land Go. 5 Saw. 166 ; Osgood v. Chicago, D. db V. Ry. Co. 6 Biss. 336. �Again, the controversy as to whether Jesse Eobinson is a member of the firm of Hawkett & Eobinson, or H. & E. Bybee, is a distinct and substantial controversy existing wholly between the plaintiff and himself, or the plaintiff and the defendants, who are citizens of Oregon, and alleged to have- claims against said firm growing out of the sale of the mining property, and said Eobinson ; and in either case it is a con- troversy wholly between citizens of different states, and oan be fully determined as between them. The same may be said of the controversy concerning the validity and priority of Jesse Eobinson's mortgage; and upon either of these grounds he is clearly entitled to have this suit removed to this court without any other party joining in the application. �Besidea, although it is not in so many words so alleged, practically this suit is brought for an accounting between the members of the alleged firm of Bybee, Hawkett, and the Eobinsons, and for a dissolution of the same, and a sale and distribution of its effects. This i-s another distinct and sub- stantive controversy in the case, and arises wholly between ����
