..CARSON .". DONALDSON.
821
in that {'ourt snccessfully,on his being taken into that court adversely more than six years But the court could not relieve from the. hardship, and the judgment had to be reversed for want of jurisdiction, and the cause remanded to the state court. The benefit of a reasonable doubt should never be given to a practice that protracts and fosters litigation and multiplies costs. The sound rule on this subject is st{lted by J Q,dge' LoVE in Kessinger v. Vannatta, 27 Fed. Rep. 890. That learned and experienced judge said: "It is the constant practice ot this court "to remand· Muses brought; here from the state courts in cases of doubtful jurisdiction. The reason of this practice is obvious and conclusive. In the first place, the jurisdiction of the fltate court is unquestionable. It is, at least, concurrent with this court. But the jurisdiction of this court depends upon special facts, and it is in the present case, to say the least, doubtful. It is the safer and wiser course to send a cause for trial to, i'c,ourtof unqUl;ls1;ionable jurJsdiction, rather than retain it here. and go through all the 'forms ot trial, when the jurisdiction is doubtful." ,.- ,.r It is neeealess to say the case at bar is not a doubtful one. It is perfectly clear it must be remanded, and it The defendant the Missouri Pacifio Raihvsy Company'\Vill be required to pay the costs of relhoval,ln.cluding aU 'th,e;costs incurr.ed in the cause in this court. . . t · . . . ' ',',."". ' . : · ",
/:
'
CARSON
v.' DONAJ,DSON
et aL . ','!;'
" OGLE. V. SAME.,
(Oircu4tOowrt, D. WatMngton;
w:. D.
March 4, 1891.)
HANFORD, J. 'I:hese cases were. coIDII;lElnQed in a territorial district .court, and were pending when the state of.Washington was admitted iuto the Union, ,and were transferred to thiacourt by order of the superior court of Pierce countY,upon a pEltition of one of the defendants, a citizen of the state ofOr.egon, showing as ground for Samuel the jurisdiction ofthis court that there is involved in each of the cases a .separate contro.v;ersy between himself and :plaintiffs,who: are' now eiti. zens of the state of Washington, and who were at the time the Oases were {Jommence!l residents,of. the of Washington. The attorney Jor the plaintiffs has contended that there is no separate controversy between . the plaintiffs aqdthe defepslaptCoulter,and 'on that ground alone .has '
822':
FEDERAL REPORTER; ., voL
'45.
queatiQlae<!,the jurisdiotion of thiseourt. I have heretofore decided this point adversely to the plaintiffs, for reasons not now necessary to reiter· now, although counsel on. bothsidel:lhave .in argument su pporl:tl<3i the contrary view,Tam of the opinion that the court has no jurisdictiQnof the case, there· being no ground of jurisdiction shown other thall the ,diverseoitizenship of the parties. My reasOns for this decision are,s14ted, in. the opiniQn just filed in ,the case ofNicker8on v.Orook, ante,
658.:,
",; "
,"":'
'','
:,
r
(Clnmtt Oourt, D. llf'£nnesota, Third DMBf.on. lIay 4, 1891.)
.
,'; ",,"
';
,
-:"
lI'1u.UDULlINT CONVBYANOIllg...:,P1R'l'J'iu5.
',:
In Equity. Demurrer to l>ill, fot,defect .of parties. In September, 1889, Reuben W. Chadbourn, now deceased, filed his bill in equity in this court against Orlen P. Whitcomb and James N. Coe. After the death Q.f Reuben W·.Chadbourrdhe action was revived in the name of the complainants herein. The said Reuben W. Chadbourn was at the time of the fl.lingilBbe:bill, and the present complainant!! now are, residents and citizens of the state of Wisconsin. The defendant Coe i, 8'residentnnd: citizen'of.the stllte of 'Minnesota, and the said Orlen P. Whitcomb is a resident and citizen of the state of Colorado. Whitcomb filed a plea in abatemtlnt, alIi,'ging'that he was time of the filing of said bill, and now is,a citizen ofthe state of Colorado,anci :alleging' that thni cou'l'tb'nd no jurisdiction over his person or the subject-matter. Said plea has been sustained by this court, and Whitcomb is out of the cnse. The bill· alleges that:Orlen P. Whitcomb is indebted to the cornplainants inluum 'exceeding $5,000, exclusive of costS,'ftIild that the deht is evidenced by Whitcomb's three ptomillsorynoteS; . No judgment haa It is alleged that' Whitcomb is inbeenobtail'led ,against solvent,and has been 80. since i 1875; that since about' 1883 he has been ofCblorado, and 'from the state a·resident;and, of Minnesota;; that COll1plllina;nts 'eann,otpFocure'aJudg111entagainsthini in any action:at ,law in'theconrts Of the state, of. Minnesota, or in the circuit court ofisaid,sta1ie -of Mim'lesota, to collect said notes; 'that jurisdiction cannot be hafl' by thb service 'of process on Whit· comb in any action at law instlidcoti'i'ts toeollel:Jt saia 'hotes or to pro-