perhaps due to counsel, who have bestowed much time llnd labor upon the record, and who presented the whole case in argument fully and elaborately, to say that these quesfions have not passel without consideration, It is supposed that enough has been said to explain the result of this investigation without further discussion; that defendants ought to account with plaintiff before a master of the court for the reasonable exand selling complainant's stock pense of keeping, under'the agreement of January 9, 1880; that defendants ought to account in·like mannerforthe value of stock brought up from King's River ranchtb Medicine Bow, and remaining unsold in the fall of the year 1880. In this computation allowance should be made for actual losses ocourring without fault of defendants, and for casualties incident to the business during the summer of 1880, and up to the date of the last shipment from Medicine Bow. With these matters adjusted, an account may be stated between the parties, crediting plaintiff with money received from sales of stock, and the value of stock on hand in the fall of1880, as stated in the last paragraph, and the $26,500 paid April 2, 1881, and debiting him as required by the agreement of January 9, 1880. It is believed that the evidence now in the record may furnish the necessary information upon all points embraced in the reference. If more evidence is required, application must be made to the court for an order in that behalf,and the application should state the point to be established, and the number of witnesses to be called, and the manner of taking the testimony.
(Oz'rcuit Oourt, S. D. G60'l'gia, W. D. 1887.)
UNITED STATES CmcuIT COURT-CONTROVERSY OF DEFENDANTS INTER SESE.
Where citizens of Georgia, who are partners, are both sued in equity in the courts of the United States, one of them cannot, by cross-bill against the other, litigate tbeir disputes inter 8686. The jurisdiction of this court is limited, and where it does not obtain it i. an inflexible rule that it cannot be exercised.
In the courts of tbe United States it is never too late to consider the question of jurisdiction, and, if at any time the want of jurisdiction should appear, it is the duty of the court to arrest the proceeding. (Syllabu8 by the Oourt.)
SAME-OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
Hill &- Harris, for plaintiff. Bacon&- Rutherford, for defendant.
SPEER,J. This is a controversy wherein a creditors' bill had been filed against the defendants, Vannerson and Leverett; Vannerson having
VANNERSON ·11. LEVERETT.
filed a cross-bill against his co-defendant, Leverett, seeking to obtain relief in a certain alleged indebtedness which existed inter sese; Leverett has filed his plea to the jurisdiction of the United States courts, averring that both he and Vannerson are citizens of Georgia. Vannerson demurs to the plea on two grounds: First, that the question of jurisdiction of the court has been adjudicated adversely to the defendant Leverett on a demurrer to the cross-bill at a previous term of this court; secondly, that the bill filed by Bates, Reed & Cooley was a creditors' bill, and that the jurisdiction of the court with such a bill does not depend upon the citizenship of the parties. It appeared in the argument that Bates, Reed & Cooley have dismissed the original bill, brit, in the opinion oithe court, this need not necessarily be considered. Hit be true that Vannerson and Leverett are both citizens of Georgia, the one can have in this court no relief against the other in a cross-bill filed to an original bill against them both, which he could not have obtained by original bill here. In other words, the fact that they are both sued in one bill here does not confer any power on them to litigate their controversies inter sese in this court. Most clearly, if the plea is true, Vannerson had no stanqing in this court as a suitor by original bill. He prays no relief against Bates, Reed & Cooley. His crossbill has no relation to the subject-matter of their suit, nor is this crossbill in· any sense a reply to allegations of the original bill. The circuitcourt oithe United States is limited in its jurisdiction, and, when it does not obtain, it is an inflexible rule that the judicial power of the United States must not be exerted, even if both parties desire to have it exerted. Railroad Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. Q10; Gr088 v. De V1l,lle, 1 Wall. 5. Nor does it matter that this court, on hearing a demurrer to the cross-bill at a previous term, may have expressed the opinion that the bill contained such allegations of the citizenship of the parties as would retain the jurisdiction here. The defense is now set up by plea, and if the defeLdant can bring facts in support of his plea to the attention of the chancellor he may do so. He may contradict the averments of the bill. A judgment of a court-without jurisdiction is a nullity, and where the failure of the j'uisdiction is alleged in the courts of the United States it is never too late for the court to consider the evidence pertinent thereto. Indeed, congress, by imperative statute, has mltde this obligatory. If at any time the want of jurisdiction should appear, it is the duty of the court to dismiss the case. Then surely "at any time" it is the privilege of the party to make it appear, if he can; nor in this case does it waive the absence of jurisdiction to file an answer. The limited jurisdiction of the courts of the United States cannot be enlarged by the action of the parties litigant therein, and, if the want of jurisdiction at any time appears, the court, sua sponte, will raise the question, whether the parties do or do not. The argument that. the odginal bill was a creditors', does not and cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of a court so limited, nor does the argument ab inconveniente, of the solicitor for the complainant, have any place in such a court. The true practice in the courts of the United States, if we may add to. the classical citations of
complainant's solicitor a saying of Lord MANSFIELD, "bani judicis eat ampliari jU8t:itiam," not "juriBdictionem," as has been often cited. The demurrer is overruled.
MANN and others
ApPEJ.. and others.
(Oirouit OQurt, S. D. Georgia, E. D. June 4,1887.) 1.
A court ofequity has jurisdiction to reach the property of a judgment debtor justly applicable to the payment of hi$ debts. which cannot be reached by an . . . execution at law. ' For thllElxercilie of this jurisdiction the debt must be dear and undisputed, and there must exist special circumstances requirinp; the interposition of equity,and it must generally be shown that legal means for its collection have '· . been exhausted. In order'to defeat and oust equitr jurisdiction, where such "special circumstances" and o,ther grounds for itsmterposition exist, it is not enough to show that it isnot absolutely necessary to appeal to equity, and that there is alegal remedy, but'the remedy at law must be in all respects as satisfactory and as ample as therlllief furnished by a court of equity. Where A. fraudulently transfers propertY' to B., to avoid the payment of hiS debts, the remedy by garnishment against B. is not so full and complete as II proceeding in chancery; and this is 'especially true. where there are several complainants, and a fund to be distributed according to the priority of their liens. ' . The equity jurisdiction in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, and conceal· ment does not depend on discovery.
2. SAME-GitOUNJ>S OF JURISDICTION.
The ailegations in the bill, if true, (,lreate a trust in the hands of Perlinski for the benefit of the creditors of Appel Bros. (811llabU8 by tM O o u r t . ) · .
Charles Nephw West, for complainapts. Garard &Jl1eldrim, R. R. Richards, and J. J. Abrams, for defendants.
SPEER, J. The complainants, Mann & Co. and Tucker & Co., zens and merchants of the state of Maryland, bring their bill against Appel Bros. 'and Julius Perlinski, of the city of Savannah, in this district, that on the twelfth day of November, 1885, Appel Bros. were dealers in clothing and notions in the city of Savannah. Their stock .was largely oomposed of goods purchased on credit. In a short time,the latter part of the. summer and in the early fall of that year,-such purchases j amounting to the sum of $20,000, were added to a stock worth $2.000; that these purchases were made at a time of depression and great stagnation in business, and were bought by Appel Bros. with