Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/112

98 rBDEEAi BBPOETER. �5. AcT OT 1875, § 2. �Qtmre, vriiether thIB conclusion could be come to, upon a true conetructior of the second section of the act of 1875, without regard to the provisions oj the constitution. �The recent decision of Barney t. W. E. <t E. P. Latham, in the supreme court of the United States, distinguished. �The plaintiff, on the fifth day of January, 1877, filed its bill in the circuit court of Webster county, lowa, to enforce its claim against said navigation oompany to a large amount of taxes which it had paid upon certain lands lying in that county, alleging that said taxes had been paid in good faith, under color of title, by virtue of a deed received by the plaintiff from the Dabuque & Sioux City Eailway Company. The bill, also, in addition to the accounting, sought to have the amount which should be found due charged as a special lien upon the lands, and prayed that the lands should be sold to satisfy the same. Afterwards, to-wit, on the sixteenth day of July, 1877, Edwin C. Litchueld petitioned said court for leave to intervene in the cause, setting up as ground therefor that he was the owner of the lands sought to be subjected to the lien of the taxes, and was there- fore interested in the suit. �On the seventeenth of July, 1877, the next day after filing the peti- tion for leave to intervene, the court gianted the petition, and there- upon Mr. Litchueld filed his petition and bond to remove the cause to this court, which was accordingly done, and the cause was dock- eted here August 10, 1877. �At the Oetober term, 1878, the plaintiff appeared in this court and filed its motion to remand, which was overruled. �At the May term, 1879, the plaintiff moved to have the order of November 5, 1878, denying the motion to remand, set aside. This motion was also overruled ; Mr. Justice Miller saying, however, that if the complainant would dismiss so much of his bill as sought to sub- ject the lands claimed by Litchfield to the taxes, the motion to re- mand should be sustained. In accordance with the suggestion of the court, the complainant, at a subsequent time, dismissed so much of its bill as sought to subjeot the land to the payment of its claim, and at the same time moved to have the cause remanded. Pending this motion the defendant Litchfield applied for leave to file a cross-bill, which the court granted, and denied the complainant's motion to remand. Litchfield filed his cross-bill making the homestead and navigation companies defendants, and praying that his title to the lands be declared free and ciear of any lien as claimed by the home- ��� �