FOUNTAIN V; TOWN OF A.NGELIOA..
was colorable 6nly, and the real interest still remained in the assignor, jurisdiction would not be entertained. Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280. The section in question, therefore, was quite unnecessary if it was only intended to reach a case in which the plaintiff, by assignment, obtained merely a colorable title to the' subject of the controversy. It is not difficult to discern the purpose of the section. It had long been notorious that the jurisdiction of the circuit courts was constantly invoked for the benefit of, parties not within the class which the constitutional grant of jurisdiction to, the federal courts was intended to include; by parties who, because they were citizens of the same state as their could only :reso1-t to the courts of the state, but who, for some ulterior to resort, to the federal courts. The device of transferring ,the supjeqt of the controversy to a citizen ofa-nether state, a friendly coadjutor, who, while acquiring the legal, title;, was expected to litigate for the benefit of the original party. Thrts, new parties were introduced into controversies in which they had stantial interest, merely to bring cases intp the}ederal It cannot be doubted that the provision in questIon intended to meet and prohibit a jurisdiction sought aJ;ld obtained by suohcol· lusive methods. It should be held that a plaintiff who has been introduced into a controversy by an assignment or transfer merely that he may acquire a standing and relation to the controversy which will enable him to prosecute it for the bim'eficial interests of the orig. inal party, "has been improperly and collusively made a party for the purpose of creating a case cognizable under the act." No better illustration of the class of cases which the section was intended to meet could be presented than the present case affords. It is palpable upon the evidence that the plaintiff has no substantial interest in the coupons which are sued upon, conceding that he acquired the legal title to them so as to enable him 'to maintain' the action. He bought them at the solicitation of one Dick, without any inquiry as to their validity or value, and without any negotiation concerning the price to be paid. He pretended to pay for them by a check which he has never paid, which was made for the full face amount of the dishonored and contested coupons, which was paid, if paid at all, by a bank of which Dick was a director and the plaintiff was an aflSistant cashier; and which, after the expiration of three years, he has never heard of since he gave it.' He testifies he hap no personal interest in the transaction. He was infol'med the coupons would have to be collected by suit. He placed them in the hands of
,pj,!lk;'s, attorney, fOf iQollection,vf!fJy soon after, :t;eceivingthem. He that he, dill uotexpect to be responsible to the attorney for his chftrges. In short, he' was merely an iustr.nment of Dick, se· leotedby Dick, and invested with, a formal title to the coupons, in order that Dick might litigate them' in a federal court. > It is the duty of the court to disJDiss the suit.
A bona fide conveyance of property in controversy for the express purpose of conferring jurisdiction, is no ground for remanding a cause to the state court, (Hoyt v. Wright, 4 FED. REP; 168;) but a defendant cannot acquire the right to a removal by the purchase of the interests of his co-defendants. Temple v. Smith, 4 FED. RICP, 392. Where a citizen transfers mortgage notes to ,a foreigner for the pUfpose of giving jurisdiction, not ,accompanied with an agreement for a retransfer, the circuit court will take jurisdiction of the cause when removed; Marion v. Ellis, to FED. REP. ,410. So the right tosue is not invalidated by the fact that the note was transferred for the purpose of giving the court jUliSdiction; (Lanning v. Lockett, 10'FED. REP. 451; affirmed, So C. 11 FED. REP. 814;) but the transfer of a deed mala fide in one state to the citizen of another will not enable the grantee to maintain ejectment in Buch court.. (h'emwalt v. Tucker, 10 FED. REP. 884. The circuit court has no jurisdiction of a cause on the ground of citizenship, where the nominal ties are not thereaI parties in interest, but have been made parties collusively, to bring the controversy within the jurisdiction. Marion v.BlUs, 9 FED.UEP. 367. Where parties conveyed lands to a stranger, a -cittzen of another state. without his consideration,for the. purpose of creating jurisdiction in the United States courts, the transac,tion wUJI on,ly. colorable and collusive, and the suit must be, dismissed. Coffin. v. Haggin, 11 FED. REP. 219.-(ED. .
W. D. Tennessee.
LEQUITY-PLEADING-FoRMER SUIT PENDING-ABATEMENT"":":8TATE AND FED-
,The pendency of a bill in equity for the same subj.ect-lll,Atter, and hetween the same parties, in a state court, is no bar to a siwiIar bill ill the federal court in the same state. 2. BAME-PARTNEltSHrP BTJ.I......ADMINISTRATION Bn.L. Where a partner filed a bill in the state court to settle the partnership against the representatives of his deceased partner, and subsequently a creditor filed a bill under the Tennessee C6de, in the same court, against the representatives of; the 'deceased partner, to 'sell ,land to pay debts, and inea'eh of these 'pro, ceedings .anon-resident creditor of the. partnership tlleQ a petition to have heI debt paid, tllata plea of ,former suit pending, setting up these proceedings, in defllilce of a bilrtosettle the partnership, f\1ed in the state,co\ut by the non-residen.t credltor"andby her removed'to the federal court,' waS'!ilStiffici!lnt, '" '."; "'"