‘ LRGUED AND DETEBMINED
nr rms
O O • 0 O O .
ittmtnl ,§»’tutza Glntmt mul Qtaimtt Qlnutta.
Evans and others v. Smcru. ,
Wtrczuit Oourt, D. Gatorade. June 23, 1884.)
‘ 1. Fnnnnnz. CoUn·rs—-Rnmovln. on Causes nnom Srum Coun1·-Snvmun Ac-
rrons mrrwnmn SAME P.•.m—n¤s, Erc.
In several actions for the same cause between the same parties in a court of
the state, the parties may not proceed to trial in one and afterwards remove
another, under the act 0 1875, and have the right to try the latter in a federal
court. ·
2. SAME—REARRANGEMENT or- Psnrms.
The act of 1875, relative to removal of causes from a state to a federal court,
provides that the application for the removal mustbe made before or at the »
time at which such cause could be first tried, and before the trial thereof. After
a trial, a different arrangement of the parties (or those·interested in their stead)
in a second suit does not so far alter the status of the case as to entitle the parties,
or any of them, to a removal, when the subject·matter of the controversy is
identical with that presented in the suit, trial upon which has already been had.
8. Bamaé-lmoncrron Pmunnnm Lira.
Upon an action at law to recover real property in a court of the state, a bill
can be maintained in a federal court to preserve the property pending the suit
at law only when the jurisdiction of the state court has not been invoked. lf ·
in the principal suit at law relief by way of injunction is asked for, there can
be no ground upon which to ask for the same thing in the federal court.
Motion for an Injunction. A
G. G. Symes and Thomas Macon, for plaintiffs.
Charles S. Thomas, for defendant.
Hsnrrrrr, J. May 11, 1883, Charles H. Smith and three others
brought suit in ejectment against Cornelia C. Evans and eleven oth- l
ers, in the district court of Gunnison county, to recover the possession
of the Eureka lode. In the same complaint they asked for an injunc»
tion, according to the usual practice in courts of the state, to restrain
the defendants from working the claim pending the suit. June 12,
1883, defendants in that suit answered the complaint, denying at
v.21r·,no.1—1