FIBST PBESBTT'n SOCIETY, ETC., V. GOODRICH TRANS. CO. 261 �of brmging suit. Since the Code, as before, the insurer could acquire, not a new and separate cause of action, but a right or interest with the owner. of the property in a single cause of action or liability already existing., The act of the defendant here gave rise to but one liability, if any. The owner of the property and the insurer have joined to recover the whole loss, as they may properly do, and the character of the cause of action being as stated, the question is, does the whole record show such a controversy arising wholly between the defendant and the plaintiff insurance company as makes the case removable within the meaning of the provision of the act of 1875, before quoted? The cause of action being a ]oint one, and the plaintiffs joining to recover for the loss, what is the real controversy between the parties? What ia the controversy which must be determined in order to deter- mine the suit? Plainly it is the question whether or not the property of the plaintiff society was destroyed by a fire caused by the negligence of the defendant, and the amount of the loss. It is the question of liability for alleged negligence, and the extent of such liabilty, if any exists. That is the real controversy. Much dispute bas arisen as to the meaning of the provision of the statute which declares that "when in any suit ******* there shall be a contro- versy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them," the case may be removed; and perhaps some of the decisions, which are fast becoming multitudinous, are somewhat inhar- monious. �Authorities are not wanting which strongly support the proposition that the controversy between parties who are cit- izens of different states must be one which is so far the real' and substantial controversy in the case that when it is de- termined the suit will be determined. Carraher v. Brennan, 1 Biss. 497 ; City of Chicago v. Gage, 6 Biss. 467 ; Dillon on Eemovals, (3d Ed.) § 25. However that may be, I think it cannot be said of the case at bar that there is a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states. The cause of action being single, and the plaintiffs being joint ��� �
