4 FEDERAL REPORTER.
We understand that in this case all the parties interested on one side
of the controversy, and all being citizens of other states than Texas,
have applied for the removal as against the parties on the other side,
who are all citizens of Texas. If this is so, then this case was properly
removed under the first clause of section 2 of the act of 1875. If all
the parties on one side have not applied for the removal, then the case
was properly removed under the second clause of the second section p
of said act. And we take this occasion to remark that, in our opin-
ion, the proceedings disclosed by the record in this case eminently
justify the wisdom of the removal acts of the United States. The in-
tervenors are conceded to be large lienholders against the defendant
company; they reside in distant states. Without notice to them, on
comparatively small liens, the property on which their liens rest is
seized by the consent of the defendants and put in the hands of a
receiver to be managed indefinitely. They have no remedy to assert
their rights in any other court than the one having custody of the
property. That court, in defiance of specific statutory rights, refuses
to hear their claims or adjust their rights. They may have had a
remedy by appeal to the supreme court of the state, but it was wise
p policy, under the constitution and laws of the United States, to give
them a choice of tribunals. "In the national courts they may hope
to escape the local influence which sometimes disturbs the even ilow
of justice." See Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203.
The motion to remand in this case is denied.
MsC01m10K, J., concurs.
Ennxs v. NORTON..
` `()'ircuvIt Uaurt, N. D. Texas. January, 1883.) .
I 1. Rmiuovsn on Cnnsns Amsnvo unnnn Laws or rua Unrrun Siwrms.
Cases arising under the laws of the United States are such as grow out of
the legislation of congress, whether they constitute the right or privilege or
claim or protection or defense of the party, in whole or in part, by whom they
are asserted.
2. Uivrrnn Bryrms Mnzsnan.
A part of the plainti1f’s case is to make the United States marshal liable for
the acts of his deputy. lf the marshal is liable, such liability arises under the
laws of the United States, and must be tested by such laws.
Hteported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
7Wm