ooeem o. some.   37 i
permissible, however, inoases where   is impossible for- the parties `
or person removing the cause to obtain the required copy. If cone .
gress had intended that the lapse of memory on the part of the attor-,
ney of the removing party should be regarded as a sullicient reason,
for the court to extend the time of filing the record, it would not
have limited the rights to the single case of the impossibility of ob;
taining the record trom the clerk of the state court; and all the
authorities seem to be to the same effect., See Bright v. M. c6 St. P.,
R. Co. 14 Blatchf. 214; Burdickv. Hale, 7 Biss. 98; McLean v. SQ.
Paul é C'. Ry. C0. 16 Blatchf. 317. ,
This case must be remanded to the state court.
See Glcrver v. Sheppard, 15 Fun. REP. 833; Hall v. Brooks, 14 Fm:. Bar.
113. · ~
y Comsm v. Boms and others. ‘ , ‘
(Olroutt Court, N. D. Illlngic. June, 1883.) e '
1. Rauovsr. or Cause-Tum Runme m Bsnzvmr v. Livrnzm. I i ·
Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, followed, where it is held that under the
second clause of the second section of the act of March 3, 1875, e. 137, ( 18 St.
' pt. 3, p. 470,) when in any suit mentioned therein there is a controversy wholly
between citizens of different states, whichcan be fully determined as between
them, then either one or more of the plaintiiis or the defendants actualhv in-
terested in such controversy may, on complying with the requirements o the
statute, remove the entire suit.
2. Sami:.
The right to remove depends upon the case as disclosed by the pleadings
when the petition for removal is tiled, and is not aifectedby the fact that a de·
fendant who is a citizen of the same state with one of the plaintiffs may be a.
proper, but not an indispensable, party to such a controversy. ,
In Equity. l A A
W. J. Manning and McClellan c6 Cummins, for complainant.
Flower, Remy at Gregory and J. Edwards Fay, for defendants.
Dmimmoun, J. Boies, Fay & Conkey were wholesale grooers en-
gaged in business in Chicago, and Julius K. Graves became a special
partner, under the law of this state, in the sum of $50,000, contrib-
uted to the capital of the Erm. The firm was unsuccessful and be-
came insolvent, and the plaintiff, a citizen of Massachusetts and a_
creditor of the firm, tiled a bill in the state court alleging that vari—
ous provisions of the laws relating to special partnerships had been
violated by the Erm; among other things, charging that judgments in
favor of various individuals and corporations were confessed for more
than was due,`upon which executions had been issued, and the prop-
erty of the Erm taken. The First National Bank of Chicago, the bill
alleged, had obtained a judgment on which execution had been issued
by a wrongful preference given by the Erm. The bill also alleged