CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.-
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Louilfiana.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES UNDER
REv. ST. p. 639, § 3-AFFIDAVIT. The affidavit required by the act of 1867 (14 St. 558; Rev. St. p. 639, § 3) to he made by the petitioner for the removal of a case from a state court to the federal court, on acco1Jllt of "prejudice and local influence," may. in the absence of the petitioner, be made by his attorney of record, if the affiant swears that both himself and his client "have reason to believe, and do believe, that from prejudice and local influence he will not be able to obtain justice."
DEFORD V. MEHAFFY.
foreign citizen the right peremptorily to elect to have his cause tried in the courts of the Union if he exhibited to the court proof by affi· davit that he feared he could not obtain justice by reason of local prejudice. The allegation of local prejudice cannot be traversed, and need not specify any grounds. When made and exhibited to the court in the form of an affidavit, it works absolutely and arbitrarily a removal. 'rhe election of the party to remove, and the statement of his fear and belief, verified by the oath of some person who reasonably knows the same, are, it seems to me, the sole requisites imposed by con· gress. To require more would restrict unreasonably the protection afforded by the law. The affidavit in behalf of a party in his absence, made by the attorney, as to a fact which the attorney might and almost necessarily must know, affords to the opposite party even a better security than that of the client could, and is the affidavit made by the party, within the meaning of the statute. The motion to remand is denied.
See Hobqy v. Allisol/" 13
401, and note, 405.
& Co. v.
lCircuit (Jourl, W. D. Tennfss6e.
REMOVAL OF CAUSE-INDISPENSABI.E PARTms-GARNIsHEES.
Although certain defendants were made parties to a biil In equity on the allegation that lhey were indebted kllhe principal defendant, and thus became real parties lot.he suit, yet it does not follow that they are indispensable parties to the controversy.
Stokely Ha.,1js, for the motion. H. W. JlcCorry, contra.
HA"IMOND, D. J. This is a second motion to remand this case, upon a ground not urged on the hearing of the first motion, which was overruled. Deford v. Mehaffy, 13 FED. REP. 481. It is now said that the defendants who were made parties upon .the allegation that they were indebted to the principal defendant are citizens of this state, as are the plaintiffs', and that this defeats our jurisdictiol1. The case of Hydev. Ruble, 194 U. S. 407, is relied upon. I thirik it has no. application. While the resident defendants to this bill in equity do not oGcupy precisely the attitude of mere garnishees at law. in the sense that the case can be said to be at issue before they