Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/21

II00XI;Y », AGNEW. ���bearîng on the question in Gaines v. Fuentes, — I am of opinion that this cauBe was removable under the ast of 1875, and that, upon its transfer under that act, this court became investedwitb jurisdictionto determine the controversybetween the parties. Motion to remand overruled. ���MooNEY V. AaNEw and others. �{Circuit Court, D, Colorado. , 1880.) �1. BeuovaI/ — Jtjdgment — ^Appbal — Scire Facias — Act of Mabch 3, 1875. — Process was served upon, judgment was recovered against, and an appeal was taken by, two of several defendants in an ac- tion In a State court. A writ ta the nature of a writ of scire fa- das was subsequently served upon two other of the defendants, whlle such appeal was pending, in order to make them parties to the judgment. Held, upon the petition of the last two defend- ants, that the case was not then in a condition to be removed to the circuit court, under the last clause of section 2, of the act of March 3, 1875. �Motion to Remand. �, for plaintiff. �, for defendant. �Eallett, D. J. a motion was made some days ago to re- mand this cause to the district court of Arapahoe county, from ■whenee it was removed. It appears that the action was brought against some 20 or more defendants, two of whom were served with process, and judgment rendered against them at the last term of the district court of Arapahoe county. These defend- ants appealed the cause to the supreme court of the state. Soon afterwards two other defendants were served, and they, upon certain petitions, removed the case into this court. The petitions show that ail the defendants, as well those against whom judgment was rendered as those making the applica- tion, and those who have not been served in the cause, are residents of other states, — that is, not residents of Colorado, — and the plaintifif is a resident or citizen of this state, so that, ����