These citations sufficiently show that the point considered was different from the present, for in the last case it was directly adjudged that where relatiop as in the present case the court the parties stand in the had jurisdiction of the action, tIle motion to remand being denied. On referring to the act of congress itself, there seems to me no doubt of the jurisdiction in the preseptcase, ,it is expressly provided that "where the jurisdiction is founded tmlyon the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defimdant." This is a clear qualification of the language immediately preceding, and authorizes court ofthedistriot where the plaintiff,fesides, when, suit in the as in this case, the jurisdicti9n is fOU,nded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states. The provision of the statute itself seems to me so clear that it is unnecessary to refer to the extreme inconvenience of any different construction. Motion denied.
INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF ROCK RAPIDS
ti. BANK OF'ROett RAPIDS 6t ale
is reoovered by a bankagaiust 1101'1 illdepetidElb:t sohool-distrlot, and tbelaiterissues, ol'jierllfor the paYll;l'llbt l'hereof, whicborders the bank transfers 1lO a'third person, the transferee clatmingto be the 'owner, the bank, as well as tbe transferee, is a proper party defendant to a bill to cancel the judgments, and, when a resident of the same lItate with the plainti1!, the cause is not removable to the federal courts.
C'&''tl'SB-PARTIES':'''O.UWELLATION ' ()Jr.,JUIIGMENTS.
In Equity. Bill to ,cancel judgmen;ts On ground of illegality of consideration. Motion to remand to state court. McJllJillan Van Wagenen, for complainant., : M. ParsonB and, Crase,fof, defendants. , in the district cou,rt of Lyon county« , ,8HmAs; J. This suit Iowa, the purpose ,of the,qilll;>eing to obtain thecl;l.ncellation oftwojudgJ!lents in or Rock Rapids and against the complainant. FrplD the of it that, after the rendition of the indepf;lndent district issued orders for the payment thereof upon 'the treasurer pf the district, and these orqersJIave been livered or transferred by the bank ti>Jo4n N. the named ,party now theo.wner of the judgments, Under these it cannot he, questioned that both,tge, Bank of Rock Rap" ids and Johp. N. Richards ,are /;tit least,proper, if:,notneoessary, partie", to bill for thEl,pqtpose of the judgments and orders drawn on the, treasury Of the, district, for illegality alleged to inhere in the is not iqvolved in bill separable and distinot controversies, there 'being in fact but one issue, to-wit, are the judg-
.' :ltOl\G.jUif1.HUGGJiNS. '
IDents void forillegalitYi8nd; although the relation ofthedefendants to this issue may be different. in that the bank is the party in whose name the judgment was rendered, and Richards is the assignee thereof, yet the controversy presellte<l,by the bill as to both defendant's is one and the same, to-wit, can the judgment be vacated for fraud and illegality? There being but one controversy, and the defendants being proper parties thereto, it follows that this court has not jurisdiction, because the Bank of Rock Rapids, one of the defendants, and the complainant are botlt corporations created under the laws of Iowa, and therefore, for jurisdictional purposes, are,deemed to be citizens of Iowa. Motion to remand is granted, at cost of 'the defendant John N. Richards.
INDEPENDENT DISTIller OF ROOK RAPIDS ". MILLER
(Circuit Court,N. D.lowa,W. D. November 9,1891.)
In EqUity. Motion to remand. McMillan & Van Wagenen, for colllplainant. J. M. Parsons and James H. Oralie, for defendants.
SHIRAS, J. This cause is remanded to state court, at cost of cobson, for the reason that part of the defendants are citizens of Iowa, and there Is not a separable controversy in the case on behalf of J Rcobson. See opinion In 8ams Plaintiff v. Bank of Rock Rapids, 48 Fed. Rep. 2.
et 01. 17.
(CircwU Court, N. D. Georgia. .TuIY' 6, l89L
of ADIDNISTRATION-PLBADING. When, in, a suit in a federal Court to annul a will, the administrator. without objectIon, files an amended answer, allelting that' the complainants have attempted by litigation in this and the state courts to have the will declared VOid, and have thus required large sums to be paid out as counseUees, costs. and expenses, which are depts against the estate, and that these items are properly chargeable agaipst undevised property, etc., tbis is sufficient to warrant tho court in deciding ulion what part of the estate these expepses are charReable.
SAJlB-CXARGEABLB UPON UNDEVISED ESTA.TE,.
Where a will names but a single legatee, and the conrt decides that the devise to him does not carry after-acqUired real estate, the costs of the administration and the debts of the estate are chargeable upon such undevised lands, under Code Ga. § 2533, which classes the "necessary expenses of administration" with the debts of the estate, and section 2584, making debts chargeable upon undevisedestste when not otherwise specially provided by the will, and when there is no residuary clause.
InEquity. Bill by Morgan and others, as assigneer of certain heirs at law of Riley Garrett t to. rlll3train H. H. Huggins, his administratort