FALL8 WIEB MANUF'g CO, ». BBODEBIOK. ' 656 �citizen of another state, provided the amount in dispute exeeeds $500. The plaintiff claims less than $500, but th§ defendants, by way of oounter olaim, demand $1,000. The Missouri statute requires that the written contract on -which such counter claim is based should be filed ; and under the more recent decisions of the supreme court ol Missouri, if not filed, a motion to dismiss, etc., would lis But the < defendants having filed their answer and countei ilafm on February 8th, but not the written contract, appc-red next day, February Oth, with petition, , etc., for removal to this court, an order for which was duly granted. The act of 1875 provides for the removal of a civil suit "whefe the mat- ter in dispute exeeeds, exclusive of costs, the surn or value of $500, * • * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states." Hence the parties are within its.terms as to citizenship. Are they. as to the amount in dispute? Judge Blatchfojrd has, reoently held, (Clarkson V. Manson,*) in a case similar to this, that, a-lthough the plaintiff 's demand was for lesa thian $500, yet as the defend- ant's counter claim for judgment over was for more than $500, the cause was removable. If; that be a true interpretji,- tion of the act, the door for removals is wide open, whenever a defendant, for parposes of delay or otherwise, chooses to interpose a counter claim for more than the presoribed sum ; thus drawing into United States courts the triftl, through the device of a counter claim, of any cause in which the ampjunt claimed by plaintiff, although less. than $50.0, is to be deter- mined. It may be, on the other hand, that the original demand in the state court is| for a smail sum, while the real dispute involves thousands of dollars. How shall a TJnited States court avoid fraud on itsjurisdiction on one, hand, ^ and preserve the just right of removal on the other?, Must it await the final outcome, and then render judgment as the facts may require, purcuant to the terms of section 5 of the act of 1875, by remanding or dismissing? �An imper iant inquiry iu this case arises under section 6 of said act, viz. : "That the circuit court of the Unife<d State?, �*Reportod in 4 Fbd. Rei?. ^57., . ; . , , ��� �
