ceiver,12 are sued jointly for an injury caused by negligence, the case cannot be removed because of difference of citizenship when either of the defendants is a citizen of the same State as that of the plaintiff, unless it clearly appears that one of them was fraudulently made a party for the sake of preventing the removal.18 § 541. Separable controversies. The Judicial Code provides that if, in any suit, which would otherwise be removable, there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the District Court of the United States for the proper district. This refers to a case in which there are two controversies, one of which is separable from the other. It does not authorize a 521; Central Ohio R. Co. v. Mahoney, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 732; Person v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 118 Fed. 342; Keller v. Kansas City, St. L. & C. R. Co., 135 Fed. 202; Case v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co., 225 Fed. 862; Cf. Curtis v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 140 Fed. 777. Contra, Spangler v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 42 Fed. 305; Kelly v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 122 Fed. 286; Williard v. Spartanburg, U. & C. R. Co., 124 Fed. 796; Yeates v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 137 Fed. 943. 12 Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U. S. 635, 44 L. ed. 303; Moore v. Los Angeles I. & S. Co., 89 Fed. 73; Rupp v. Wheeling & L. E. R. Co., C. C. A., 121 Fed. 825. Contra, Chamberlain v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 71 Fed. 636. 18 Hukill v. Maysville & B. S. R. Co., 72 Fed. 745; Diday v. New York, P. & O. R. Co., 107 Fed. 565; Williard v. Spartanburg, U. & C. R. Co., 124 Fed. 796; Keller v. Kansas City, St. L. & C. Ry. Co., 135 Fed. 202; Yeates v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 137 Fed. 943; Axline v. Toledo, W. V. & O. R. Co., 138 Fed. 169; Curtis v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 140 Fed. 777; McAllister v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 198 Fed. 660; Reinartson v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 174 Fed. 707; all of which are cases of lessor and lessee. § 541. 1 Jud. Code, § 28. 36 St. at L., 1087. See 25 St. at L. 433. 2 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Shirley, 111 U. S. 358, 28 L. ed. 455; Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U. S. 408, 29 L. ed. 679; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245, 44 L. ed. 1055; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Brown, 32 Fed. 337; Sexton V. Seelye, 39 Fed. 705; Arkansas V. Sm. Co. v. Cowenhoven, 41 Fed. 450; Rogers v. Van Nortwick, 45 Fed. 513; Thompson v. Chicago, S. P. & K. C. R. Co., 60 Fed. 773; Watson v. Asbury Park & B. Street R. Co., 73 Fed. 1; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. v. Farmer, C. C. A., 77 Fed. 929, 23 C. C. A. 574, 36 U. S. App. 771; Yarnell v. Felton, 102 Fed. 369; Huntington v. Pinney, 126 Fed. 227; Blackburn v. Black 3 removal of a separate controversy between the same plaintiffs and the same defendants; nor enlarge the statutory provisions which specify the suits that may be removed. The removal takes the whole case, not merely the separable controversy, into the Federal court.5 It has been said that there is a clear distinction between separable controversies, as contemplated by the statute, and separate and wholly distinct controversies only joined in one proceeding by express statutory permission; and that, in the latter class of cases, nothing will be removed, except the controversy between the removing party and the plaintiff. It has been held that a proceeding for the collection of delinquent taxes, under the statute of North Dakota, is not a single suit, but as many suits as there are parcels of land, and that if the same person owns several parcels, such suit is consolidated by his joining all the parcels in a single answer. Where a suit is brought for the use of several having different claims against the same defendant to recover a separate amount for each, a removal of the controversy between one of these and the defendant does not burn, 142 Fed. 901; Moloney v. Cressler, C. C. A., 210 Fed. 104. These cases overruled a number of decisions of the Circuit Courts. Contra: Arapahoe County v. Kansas City P. R. Co., 4 Dill. 277, Fed. Cas. No. 502; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Champlin, 22 Blatchf. 334, 21 Fed. 85; Grindrod v. Crine, 22 Fed. 257; Stanbrough v. Cook, 38 Fed. 369; Garner v. Second Nat. Bank, 66 Fed. 369; Hunter v. Conrad, 85 Fed. 803. See a note on subject of this section in 5 L. R. A. and Ann. S. 49, 57. 3 Tullar & Tullar v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 213 Fed. 282. 4 Ibid. 5 Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 26 L. ed. 514; s. c., 3 Ky. Law Rep. 144 (Kentucky); Hervey v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 6,434 (7 Biss. 103); Carraher v. Brennan, Fed. Cas. No. 2,441 (7 Biss. 497); Girardey v. Moore, Fed. Cas. No. 5,462 (3 Woods 397); Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chicago, P. & S. W. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,665 (9 Biss. 133); Sheldon v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 1 Fed. 789 (9 Biss. 307); Corbin v. Boies, 18 Fed. 3; Atlantic & V. Fertilizing Co. v. Carter, 88 Fed. 707; Swan v. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co., 7 Ohio Dec. 669, 4 Wkly. Law Bul. 898. But see Thomas, J., in Manufacturers Commercial Co. v. Brown Alaska Co., 148 Fed. 308, 313. 6 Deepwater Ry. Co. v. Western Pocahontas Coal & Lumber Co., 152 Fed. 824. 7 Re Stutsman County, 88 Fed. 337. remove the rest of the case. By proceeding without objection to a trial in the State court of the remaining issues the right to have them tried in the Federal court is waived.9 It has been held that a separable controversy to which an alien is a party cannot be thus removed whether the alien is a plaintiff,10 or a defendant.11 Nor can a separable controversy to which a State is a party be removed.12 A plaintiff cannot remove a separable controversy in any case.18 It has been held that a defendant, who is a resident of the State where the suit is brought, cannot remove a separable controversy therein.14 Any one or more of the nonresident defendants interested in a separable controversy may remove it.15 A defendant who is a resident of the district cannot.16 Where there were several plaintiffs only one of whom was a citizen and resident of the State and the defendant was a citizen of a different State it was said that there might be a removal if there was a separable controversy between the two.17 A defendant not interested therein cannot.18 It has been held that an inter 8 State of Idaho v. Am. Surety Co., 218 Fed. 678. 9 St. Louis, W. & W. R. Co. v. Ransom, 29 Kan. 298. 10 Deakin v. Lea, Fed. Cas. No. 3,695 (11 Biss. 27); Creagh v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 88 Fed. 1. Contra, Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss, 144 Fed. 446. 11 King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395, 27 L. ed. 60; Merchants' C. P. & S. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 151 U. S. 368, 386, 38 L. ed. 195, 204; Woodrum v. Clay, 33 Fed. 897; Insurance Co. of North America v. Delaware Mutual Insurance Co., 50 Fed. 243; Tracy v. Morel, 88 Fed. 801. Contra, Bradshaw v. Bowden, 226 Fed. 323. 12 Rand v. Walker, 117 U. S. 340, 29 L. ed. 907; Texas v. Day Land & Cattle Co., 49 Fed. 593. 18 Western Union Tel. Co. V. Brown, 32 Fed. 337. 14 Thurber v. Miller, 67 Fed. 371, 14 C. C. A. 432, 32 U. S. App. 209. Contra, Stanbrough v. Cook, 38 Fed. 369, 3 L.R.A. 490; Nat. Bank of Battle Creek v. Howard, Special Term, N. Y. Sup. Ct. March 20, 1907, N. Y. L. U. March 21, 1907. 15 Rand v. Walker, 117 U. S. 340, 6 Sup. Ct. 769, 29 L. ed. 907; Field v. Lownsdale, Fed. Cas. No. 4,769 (Deady, 288); Fields v. Lamb, Fed. Cas. No. 4,775 (Deady, 430); Lewis v. White, Fed. Cas. No. 8,335; McGinnity v. White, Fed. Cas. No. 8,802 (3 Dill. 350); Green v. Klinger, 10 Fed. 689; Grindrod v. Crine, 22 Fed. 257. 16 Whitaker v. Coudon, 217 Fed. 139. 17 Webb v. Southern Ry. Co., C. C. A., 248 Fed. 618. 18 Rand v. Walker, 117 U. S. 340, 6 Sup. Ct. 769, 29 L. ed. 907. venor,19 or a party brought in on the motion of the plaintiff, 20 or of the defendant,21 may remove a separable controversy, when the necessary difference of citizenship exists between him and the party on the opposite side thereof; provided that he presents some new and independent interest or question; otherwise not; 22 19 Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U. S. 222, 26 L. ed. 337 (a party who, by an order of the court, had been appointed assignee of the property of a corporation pending a suit against it); Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 35 L. ed. 442 (a landlord intervening in an ejectment suit against a tenant); distinguished in Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245, 249, 250, 44 L. ed. 1055, 1056, 1057; Burdick v. Peterson, 6 Fed. 840, 2 McCrary 135; Snow v. Texas Trunk R. R., 16 Fed. 1, 4 Woods 394; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Alleghany Val. R. Co., 25 Fed. 115; Hack v. Chicago & G. S. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 356 (a mortgage bondholder intervening in a creditor's suit and praying a foreclosure); American Nat. Bank v. Nat. Benefit & Casualty Co., 70 Fed. 420 (a receiver of a dissolved corporation, appointed prior to a suit against a trustee holding assets of the same). Previous cases hold: that a landlord cannot intervene in and remove an ejectment suit; Ex parte Girard, Fed. Cas. No. 5,457 (3 Wall. Jr. 263); Ex parte Tunner, Fed. Cas. No. 14,245 (3 Wall. Jr. 258); Allin v. Robinson, Fed. Cas. No. 249 (1 Dill. 119); and that a person becoming interested in the land in controversy cannot intervene in and remove an action of trespass to try title; Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Schuster, C. C. A., 86 Fed. 161, 29 C. C. A. 649. Indemnitors cannot re move a suit for trespass against a sheriff. Thorn Wire-Hedge Co. v. Fuller, 122 U. S. 535, 7 Sup. Ct. 1265, 30 L. ed. 1235; Ohlquist v. Farwell, 13 Fed. 305, 4 McCrary 401; Burnham v. First Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 53 Fed. 163, 3 C. C. A. 486, 10 U. S. App. 485; Olds Wagon Works v. Benedict, C. C A., 67 Fed. 1, 14 C. C. A. 285. 20 Jackson & Sharp Co. v. Pearson, 60 Fed. 113 (a purchaser of the subject-matter in controversy previous to the commencement of the suit). 21 Greene v. Klinger, 10 Fed. 689 (a warrantor of the original defendant's title). 22 Ellerman v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,382 (2 Woods 120); Weller v. J. B. Pace Tobacco Co., 32 Fed. 860; Bronson v. St. Croix Lumber Co., 35 Fed. 634; Hakes v. Burns, 40 Fed. 33; Olds Wagon Works v. Benedict, C. C. A., 67 Fed. 1; Watson v. Asbury Park & B. St. R. Co., 73 Fed. 1; Turnbull Wagon Co. v. Linthicum Carriage Co., 80 Fed. 4; Kidder v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 117 Fed. 997; Herbert v. Lefevre (Louisiana), 31 La. Ann. 363; Davis v. Montgomery (Louisi ana), 36 La. Ann. 874; Baltimore & O. Tel. Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. (Louisiana), 37 La. Ann. 883; Gudger v. Western N. C. R. Co. (North Carolina), 87 N. C. 325; Sifford v. Beaty (Ohio), 12 Ohio St. 189. Contra, but that one who intervenes for the purpose of asserting a lien, prior to that of the original plaintiff, occupies the attitude of an intervening plaintiff, and cannot remove the case on the ground that there is a separate controversy between him and the original plaintiff; 23 and that a person who has been denied permission to intervene cannot obtain such a removal.24 In one case a nonresident defendant who had not been served was denied the right of renewal.25 The case must be separable into parts, so that in one of them a controversy will be presented wholly between citizens of dif ferent States, which can be fully determined without the presence of the other parties.2 26 There can be no removal when an indispensable party to the controversy is a citizen of the same State as any party on the side opposite to him.27 The citizenship Beecher v. Gillett, Fed. Cas. No. 1,225 (1 Dill. 308). But see Connell v. Smiley, 156 U. S. 335, 39 L. ed. 443. 23 Re San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. 145. Contra, Snow v. Texas Trunk R. Co., 16 Fed. 1, 4 Woods 394. 24 Bertha Zine & Mineral Co. v. Carico, 61 Fed. 132. 25 Sullivan v. Lloyd, 213 Fed. 275. 26 Gardner v. Brown, 21 Wall. 36, 22 L. ed. 527; Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L. ed. 355; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191; 1 Sup. Ct. 171, 27 L. ed. 131; Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130, 2 Sup. Ct. 311, 27 L. ed. 677; Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 12 Sup. Ct. 726, 36 L. ed. 528; Bixby v. Couse, Fed. Cas. No. 1,451 (8 Blatchf. 73); Maine v. Gilman, 11 Fed. 214; Connell v. Utica, U. & E. R. Co., 13 Fed. 241; New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co. v. Trotter, 18 Fed. 337; Gudger v. Western N. C. R. Co., 21 Fed. 81; Capital City Bank v. Hodgin, 22 Fed. 209; McNulty v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 46 Fed. 305; Scoutt v. Keck, C. C. A., 73 Fed. 900; Snow v. Smith, 88 Fed. 657; Carter v. Scott 27 Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. |