SNOW v. rmus TBUNK mrnaom. 3
The petition and bond for removal was Bled at the term at which
intervenors Brst appeared, and before the trial of the case. It
is probable that this is suihcient as to time of application; but
it is not necessary to go so far in this case. The original petition
was Bled and service accepted at the December term of the Kauf-
man county district court, 1881; but no further proceedings, look- T
ing to an issue on trial, were had at that term. The next term
was in J une, 1882; at that time _the intervenors appeared with
their application for the removal ofthe case. Furtherthan this,
the original petition does not look to or contemplate any trial, and
no relief is sought, save the appointment of a receiver tomanage the
affairs of an alleged insolvent railroad company, until the plaintiffs'
lien can be paid from the earnings of the road or assets of the com-
pany, or until plaintiffs could obtain judgment in other suits insti· g
tuted on their respective claims.
The case as made by the record shows a controversy between inter-
venors and the defendant’s railroad company for the foreclosure of
. the lien claimed by intervenors, and a controversy between the inter-
venors and the original plaintiffs as to which party is entitled to pri-
ority of lien against the defendant company. All the intervenors are
citizens of other states than Texas; all of the plaintiffs and the de-
fendants are citizens of Texas; there is no question but that these
controversies can be fully determined as between the respective
parties to them. We then have a controversy between citizens of
different states; a controversy between citizens of a state and citizens `
of other states; and a controversy which is wholly between citizens
of different states, and which can be fully determined as between
them.
For the purpose of removal of a cause, the matter in dispute may ·
be ascertained, and according to the facts the parties arranged on op- `
posite sides of that dispute. If in such an arrangement it appears
that those on one side, being all citizens of different states from `
those on the other, desire a removal, the suit may be removed. Req ·
moval Cases, 100 U. S. 457. A I
When, in any suit mentioned in the second section of the act of March
3, 1875, there is a controversy wholly betweencitizens of different ·
states, which can be fully determined as between them, then either
one or more of the defendants or plaintiffs actually interested in said
controversy may, on complying with the requirements of the statute,
remove the entire suit. See Burney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205.