Tbe acknowledged rale in tbis jurisdiction in regard to removal upon tbe ground of fraudulent joinder is tbus declared by Stacy, G. J., in Crisp v. Fibre Co., 193 N. C., 77: “TJpon tbe filing of sucb petition, in apt time, wben tbe fraudulent joinder is sufficiently alleged, tbe suit or action must be removed to tbe Federal Court, and if tbe plaintiff desires to traverse tbe jurisdictional facts, be must do so in tbat tribunal on motion to remand.” Smith v. Quarries Co., 164 N. C., 338.

It is further established law tbat: “If tbe facts alleged in tbe petition, taken to be true, show tbat tbe resident defendant has no real connection with tbe controversy, tbe petition for removal must be granted by tbe State court; if they are controverted by tbe plaintiff, tbe issues must be determined in tbe Federal Court, which will remand or retain tbe action for trial, upon its findings of facts involved in tbe issues raised.” Connor, J., in Cox v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 28.

Assuming, therefore, as we are compelled to do, tbat tbe facts alleged in tbe petition for removal are true, it appears tbat tbe defendant, Atlantic-Tennessee & Ohio Bailroad Company, many years ago sold its entire property to tbe nonresident defendant, Southern Eailway Company, and further, tbat said Atlantic-Tennessee & Ohio Eailroad Company never owned or bad any control of tbe tracks, franchises or appliances in Illinois where tbe plaintiff was injured. It also appears from tbe petition tbat tbe resident defendant Harmon is a claim agent of tbe nonresident defendant; tbat be is not a party to tbe release referred to in tbe complaint, and claims no right or interest therein, and has no possession thereof. Hence it is apparent tbat tbe resident defendant Harmon “has no real connection with tbe controversy.” Therefore tbe cause is removable. In tbe recent case of Allred v. Trexler Lumber Co., ante, 547, it is held tbat whenever it appears tbat tbe real controversy is between citizens of different states tbe presence 'of mere formal parties will not oust tbe jurisdiction of tbe Federal Court. Certainly Harmon, if a party at all, in contemplation of law, is no more than a formal party.

Plaintiff relies upon tbe case of Killian v. Hanna, 193 N. C., 17. It should be observed tbat there was no petition for removal in tbe Killian case, and it was not considered from tbat aspect. In addition, tbe record discloses tbat it was alleged in tbe complaint tbat all of tbe defendants, “in order to escape their full and just liability in tbe premises, entered into a conspiracy for tbe purpose of inducing and procuring a release and settlement for a nominal consideration on account of tbe death of tbe said Eoy Killian”; and further, tbat tbe release complained of “was procured by all of tbe defendants acting together for their joint and several benefit and protection, and in fraud both for -the rights and *656 duties of plaintiff as administrator of said Boy Killian,” etc. We are of tbe opinion that the Killian case is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

We conclude upon the facts, properly alleged in the petition for removal, that the nonresident defendant was entitled to have the cause removed to the Federal Court.

Beversed.