OpenJurist

108 US 130 Winchester v. Loud

108 U.S. 130

2 S.Ct. 311

27 L.Ed. 677

WINCHESTER
v.
LOUD.

March 19, 1883.

Sullivan M. Cutcheon, for appellant.

This is a suit in equity, begun in a state court of Michigan by Henry M. Loud, the appellee, a citizen of Michigan, against Charles Winchester and Herbert F. Whiting, citizens of Massachusetts, and George E. Wasey, Henry N. Loud, and Aaron F. Gay, citizens of Michigan, and removed to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Michigan at the instance of the defendant Winchester, on the ground, as stated in the petition for removal, 'that the principal controversy in said suit is wholly between said plaintiff (Henry M. Loud) and your petitioner (Winchester) who are citizens of different states, and which controversy can be fully determined as between them, and that your petitioner is actually interested in said controversy.' When the copy of the record was filed in the circuit court, that court remanded the suit to the state court. From an order to that effect this appeal was taken.

[Argument of Counsel from 131 intentionally omitted]

A. T. Britton, and J. H. McGowan, for appellee.

WAITE, C. J.

1

The petition for removal was filed before answer, and we must look, therefore, to the bill alone to determine what the controversy is. From this it appears that Henry M. Loud claims that the defendants Wasey, Henry M. Loud, and Whiting hold certain real and personal property in trust to secure a debt owing by him and the defendant Gay to the defendant Winchester; and, after the debt is paid, for the use and benefit of himself and Gay. He asks for an accounting by the trustees, the removal of Wasey and Whiting, and the appointment of others in their places; and, after the debt is paid, a conveyance of what remains of the trust property in accordance with the terms of the trust. The case presents but a single controversy, although it involves the determination of several questions. It may be that Winchester is the principal defendant in interest, but full and complete relief cannot be afforded in respect to the single cause of action, to-wit, the trust, without the presence of all the parties to the suit. According to the averments in the bill, all the defendants except Henry M. Loud deny the existence of the trust, and, if that should be established, all the defendants are directly interested in the relief that is asked. The case falls clearly within the rule stated in Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407.

2

The order remanding the suit is affirmed.