jurisdictional amount, does not put the original plaintiff in the position of a defendant, so that he can remove the cause; 15 debar the defendant of his right to remove.16 nor Upon the removal of a condemnation proceeding, pending an appeal from the decision of the commissioners, the land owner, who was the respondent below, is usually regarded as a defendant.17 Upon an appeal from an application for the probate of a will, the party opposing the probate is considered as the defendant.18 It has been held that, upon an appeal from a decision of a board of county commissioners upon a county claim, the claimant must be considered to be the plaintiff, and that he cannot remove the cause, although he is the respondent 15 West v. Aurora City, 6 Wall. 139, 18 L. ed. 819; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 44 Fed. 645; Waco Hardware Co. v. Michigan Stove Co., C. C. A., 91 Fed. 289; McKown v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 105 Fed. 657; City of Aurora v. West, 25 Ind. 148; aff'd 6 Wall. 139, 18 L. ed. 819; Chappell v. Chappell, 39 Atl. 984; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. A. Waller & Co., 164 Fed. 358, 85 Md. 532; Smithers v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 646; rehearing granted (Sup.) 81 S. W. 283. But where, pending an appeal by a landowner from the award of a sheriff's jury in condemnation proceedings under the statute of Iowa, he filed a pleading which was tantamount to a cross-bill praying an injunction against the institution of the proceedings for want of power in the corporation; it was held that this made the defendant the latter as regards the issues raised thereupon and entitled it to remove the case when the other statutory prerequisites existed. Hagerla v. Mississippi River Power Co., 202 Fed. 777. Contra, Carson & Rand Lumber Co. v. Holtzclaw, 39 Fed. 578 (for prejudice or local influence); Price & Hart v. T. J. Ellis & Co., 129 Fed. 482. 16 Meissner v. Buek, 28 Fed. 161; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 44 Fed. 645. 17 Mason City & Fort Dodge R. R. Co. v. Boynton, 204 U. S. 570, 51 L. ed. 629 (under Iowa statute, which said that on an appeal "the land owner shall be plaintiff and the corporation defendant'); Mt. Washington Ry. Co. v. Coe, 50 Fed. 637 (under New Hampshire statute); Hudson River R. & T. Co. v. Day, 54 Fed. 545 (under New Jer sey statute). Supra, § 538f. Contra, White v. City, 8 Phila. 241. But see Hagerla v. Mississippi River Power Co., 202 Fed. 771; supra, note 15. Before the case in 204 U. S. 570, 51 L. ed. 629 it was held that, under similar circumstances in proceedings under the same Iowa statute, the railroad company might remove the case. Kirby v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 106 Fed. 551; Myers v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 118 Iowa 312, 324, 91 N. W. 1076. 18 Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed. 518. upon such appeal.19 In Colorado, it was held that a claimant against an assignee for the benefit of creditors, who had filed his claim, and subsequently a reply to the exception filed by the assignee, must be considered to be a plaintiff, and had no right to remove the cause.20 It seems that civil suits or criminal prosecutions against revenue officers or persons having defenses under the revenue laws may be removed by such defendant alone, although other parties not having such a defense have been joined with him; 21 and that actions against any person for or on account of anything done by him while an officer of either House of Congress, in the discharge of his official duty, may be similarly removed.22 It seems that civil suits or criminal prosecutions where any defendant is denied or cannot enforce his rights, secured by the civil rights laws, or where any defendant has a defense under the civil rights laws, may be removed by such defendant, although his co-defendants do not join in his petition.23 Suits between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States may be removed by any one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants.24 Suits arising under the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, except those previously specified, cannot be removed unless all the defendants join in the petition, even though some of them are not interested in the controversy 25 It seems that suits to which an alien is a party cannot be removed unless all the parties on the opposite side of the controversy to that of the plaintiff join in the application.26 Where 19 Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 473, 33 L. ed. 674; Tullock v. Webster County, 40 Fed. 706; supra, § 5381. 20 Hill v. Graham, 11 Colorado App. 536, 53 Pac. 1060. 21 U. S. R. S., § 643. See infra, § 551. 22 18 St. at L., p. 401, ch. 130, § 8. See infra, §§ 551, 552. 23 U. S. R. S., § 641. 24 25 St. at L., p. 433, ch. 866, $3; supra, § 50. 25 Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245, 248, 44 L. ed. 1055, 1056; Yarnell v. Felton, 102 Fed. 369; Yarnell v. Felton, 104 Fed. 161; Scott V. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co., 112 Fed. 180; Heffelfinger v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co., 140 Fed. 75; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 59 Kansas 437, 53 Pac. 461; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Young (Texas Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 145. § 537b. See supra, 26 25 St. at L., p. 433, ch. 866, the sole ground of the removal is that the only controversy in the suit is between citizens of different States, the preponderance of authorty supports the proposition that all the parties named in the plaintiff's pleading, who are on the opposite side of the controversy to him, must join in the application.27 The fact that one of the defendants has not been served,28 or has made default, 29 or that judgment was entered against one before service upon the other,30 or that one had appeared and disclaimed,31 will not obviate the necessity of his joinder in the application. Defendants who are described in the plaintiff's pleadings as unknown need not join in the petition for the removal.32 Formal parties need not join in the petition.33 Improper 34 and 27 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; Arkansas Val. Sm. Co. v. Cowenhoven, 41 Fed. 450; Thompson v. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 773; Yarnell v. Felton, 102 Fed. 369; Huntington v. Pinney, 126 Fed. 237; Blackburn v. Blackburn, 142 Fed. 901; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Hoyle, C. C. A., 149 Fed. 180. Contra, Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Champlin (S. D. N. Y.), 21 Fed. 85; Garner v. Second Nat. Bank of Providence (S. D. N. Y.), 66 Fed. 369; Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Mackay (S. D. N. Y.), 70 Fed. 801; Hunter v. Conrad (D. R. I.), 85 Fed. 803; Mumford Rubber Tire Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 130 Fed. 496. 28 Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389, 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. ed. 987; Patchin v. Hunter, 38 Fed. 51. Contra, Wormser v. Dahlman, Fed. Cas. No. 18,048 (16 Blatchf. 319); Tremper v. Schwabacher, 84 Fed. 413; Bowles v. H. J. Heinz Co., 188 Fed. 937. 29 Putnam v. Ingrahm, 114 U. S. 57, 5 Sup. Ct. 746, 29 L. ed. 65; Fletcher v. Hamlet, 116 U. S. 408, 6 Sup. Ct. 426, 29 L. ed. 679; affirming order, Hamlet v. Fletcher, 24 Fed. 305; Brooks v. Clark, 119 U. S. 502, 30 L. ed. 482; Hax v. Caspar, 31 Fed. 499; Fairchild v. Durand (New York), 8 Abb. Prac. 305. 30 Brooks v. Clark, 119 U. S. 502. 31 City of Bellaire v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 146 U. S. 117, 13 Sup. Ct. 16, 36 L. ed. 910; New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, Fed. Cas. No. 10,167; Hax v. Caspar, 31 Fed. 499; Dow v. Bradstreet Co., 46 Fed. 824; Goodnow v. Litchfield, 47 Fed. 753. 32 Walker v. Richards, 55 Fed. 129. 33 Henderson v. Cabell, 43 Fed. 257; Shattuck v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 58 Fed. 609, 7 C. C. A. 386. 34 Cooke v. Seligman, 7 Fed. 262 (17 Blatchf. 452). See supra, § 540. perhaps unnecessary 35 parties need not join in the petition. Where there are two controversies in the case, and one of them is removable, any one or more of the non-resident defendants interested in that controversy may remove the cause.36 It has been held that in such a case the joinder of a party, who has no right of removal, does not affect the removal by the other.37 Where a case is removable for prejudice or local influence, the petition may be filed by any one of the defendants who has the right of removal without the joinder of his co-defendants.38 A removal because of alienage,39 or because the parties to the controversy are citizens of different States,40 can only be made by parties who are non-residents of the State where the suit is brought. Under the Judiciary Act of 1875, it was held that the exception of suits by assignees, which could not have been there instituted by the assignors, from the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States, did not affect the right of removal; and that the right of a defendant to remove was not affected by the citizenship of his assignor.41 Where, by the State practice, the assignee of a cause of action sued in 35 Supra, § 43. But see Buck v. Felder, 196 Fed. 419. 36 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); Greene v. Klinger, 10 Fed. 689; Grindrod v. Crine, 22 Fed. 257; supra, § 541. 37 Snow v. Smith, 88 Fed. 657. 38 25 St. at L., p. 433, ch. 866, 82; Fisk v. Henarie, 32 Fed. 417 (reversed upon another point, 142 U. S. 459, 35 L. ed. 1080); Whelan v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 35 Fed. 849; Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 54 Fed. 1; Haire v. Rome R. Co., 57 Fed. 321; infra, § 549. 39 Cooley v. McArthur, 35 Fed. 372; Cudahy v. McGeoch, 37 Fed. 40 Martin v. Snyder, 148 U. S. 41 Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 81, 28 L. ed. 76; Delaware County Com'rs v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 33 L. ed. 674; Waterbury v. Laredo, Fed. Cas. No. 17,252 (3 Woods 371); Rosenblatt v. Reliance Lumber Co., 18 Fed. 705; Bell v. Noonan, 19 Fed. his own name, but by the practice of the Federal courts the action could only be sustained in the name of his assignor, and the latter was a citizen of the same State as defendant; it was held that there could be no removal.42 § 543. Time of removal. In suits or criminal prosecutions against revenue officers,1 officers of either House of Congress, 2 or persons claiming rights under the revenue laws, or against persons who seek protection under the Civil Rights law, a removal may be had "at any time before the trial or final hearing." Removals, for prejudice or local influence, of controversies between citizens of different States, and removals of suits between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States,6 must be made "before the trial" thereof. Ordinary suits arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, or where there are controversies between citizens of different States, must be removed "at the time, or any time before, the defendant is required by the laws of the State or by the rule of the State court, in which said suit is brought, to answer or plead to the declaration of the complaint of the plaintiff."7 According to the preponderance of authority, the removal may take place during a vacation of the State court. It has been 225; Rosenbaum v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 3 L. R. A. 189, 37 Fed. 724; Leutze v. Butterfield (New York), 1 7 Daly 24; Leutze v. Butterfield (New York), 52 How. Prac. 376; Leutze v. Butterfield (New York), 1 Abb. N. C. 367. A number of decisions by the Circuit Courts to the contrary were overruled. But see Sharkey v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 92 Fed. 425; Flynn v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 145 Fed. 265. Compare Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449, 51 L. ed. 264. 42 Anderson V. Manufacturers' Bank (New York), 14 Abb. Prac. 436. $543. 1 U. S. R. S., § 643, as amended by 28 St. at L., p. 36. 2 18 St. at L., ch. 130, §8, p. 401. 8 U. S. R. S., § 643, as amended by 28 St. at L., p. 36. 4 U. S. R. S., § 641. 5 25 St. at L., p. 433, ch. 866, § 3. 625 St. at L., p. 433, ch. 866, § 3. 7 25 St. at L., p. 433, ch. 866, § 3; Daugherty v. Sharp, 171 Fed. 466. 8 Osgood v. Chicago, D. & V. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 10,604 (6 Biss. 330); Burck v. Taylor, 39 Fed. 581; Brown v. Murray, Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. 614; State v. Coosaw Min. Co., 45 Fed. 804, 811; Mecke v. Valleytown Mineral Co., 93 Fed. 697, 35 C. C. A. 151. See Remington v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 198 U. S. 95, 99, 49 L. ed. 959, 963; Monroe v. |