SECURITY CO. II. PRATT.
his neighbor concerning a tract of land, and deSliring to have the question tried in a federal court, could very readily organize a corporation in another state for the purpose of bringing a suit in the federal court, then convey whatever interest he claims in the land to the foreign corporation of his own creation, and in which he is the only stockholder, and the courts of the United States would be open to him to litigate in a federal court a question that the laws of the land, state and federal, contemplate shall be litigated in the courts of the state of which both parties are citizens. The court is clearly of opinion that this suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of this court; that the plaintiff has been collusively made a party to it for the purpose of making a case cognizable in a federal court; and this case must be dismissed.
SECURITY CO. v. PRATT.
(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. November 26, 1894.) No. 796.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES-DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP-NoMINAL AND REAL PARTms.
An administrator with the will annexed, a cltizen of Connecticut, filed a bill .in the state court for the construction of the will, against two beneficiaries, citizens, respectively, of Connecticut and' New York,-the former claiming that certain personal property, bequeathed to her for life, with power' of sale and appropriation of proceeds, should be delivered to her as her own; and the latter claiming that such Ute beneficiary should give bonds, under a statute of Connecticut, for the safekeeping of such property. Held, that the cause was not removable, the administrator being, under the law of Connecticut, not a nominal, but a real, party in interest, and one of the defendants being a citizen of the same state. There was no separable controversy, in the sense of the statute (Act Congo Aug. 13. 1888), between the New York beneficiary and either the administrator or the Connecticut beneficiary.
This was a suit by the Security Company, as administrator de bonis non with the will annex.ed of Nancie Wells Hall, against Mary Ann Pratt, and Josiah J. White, as administrator of the estate of Eliza T. 'White, for the construction of the will of Nancie W. Hall. The suit was brought in a court of the state of Connecticut, and was removed by defendant J. J. White to this court. Complainant moves to remand to the state court. Chas. E. Gross, for orator. Roger Foster, for defendant "Thite. J. Halsey, for defendant Pratt. WHEELER, District Judge. The orator, a corporation of Connecticut, is administrator de bonis non in that state of the estate of Nancie Wells Hall, with her will annexed, by which she gave the use, income, and improvement of real and personal estate to Mary Ann. Pratt, a citizen· of Connecticut, her sister, during life, with
o:t'iSaIe an!l'conveya,nqe" anq, ,of avails of saleto use, wHh remai.nder over tl) her niece, Eliza Trowbridge Whi'4l,;i'Ylfe of Josia,b, J. White, a of New York, ()f whose estate iii!, n9W adlAlplli!tratorj' and her heiFs, forever,. of ,of whom he is .,.The of Connecticut provide; that when a life is given by will with remainder, .over without a the P!:'qpi:i!te co,urtmay order the executor to deliver the esta.tEl:tqtb,e upon the giving of a p;.:operbond for its and .(leJivery to the reversioner. Gen., St. p., 138, § 559. Marjyi4tJi.\n. Prattlwfildemanded the es.tate as hel'own,without giving bill brought in the stl.lte court for a construction will. The, defendant 'W'hite filed a petition andd»ppd" ,which,. ,was approved in th,estate court, forthe removal of the cause to this' court, and entered it here. It has now: been heard on a motion to remand. If the suit is of such nature as to be removable at all, it could not be removed under the acts of congress now in force, unless all the parties in interest on one side of it, or of some separable controversy in it, are of one state, and those on the othersid,e are. citizens of another state. 25 Stat. 433. As a suit in the interest of the orator agaInst the defendants, it is not removable, because one of the defendants (Mary Ann Pratt) is a citi· zen, o.f,. the, same state (Connecticut) with the orator; The suit to get a collstruction 9f the will in for the safety of the admintOJ:)ifone which, in the iprisprudenceof the state, no one adn:J.iniStJ;ator can maintain:,Belfieldv. Booth, 63 Conn. 309, 27 At!. 585, 1'he relief sought is this advance construction, withotit'w.bre, fot1thebenefit of the oratplfl'as a reillparJ;y, in its own interest,and not'a.s arnerely nominal party without interest, as has Wlthout the a real party, nothing would remain of the suit.···,A separable controversy in a cause, about which parties may be arranged, within the meaning of this statute, must be something more than. a mere collateral ,or incidental dis}>l1te or question or QfJaw, and. amount ,to a substantialcolltroversy in respect to relief sought, which can 'he granted or denied, according to the rights of the parties as they may be Torrence v. Shedd,144U. S. 527, 12 726. The defendant White is not on iSide, with the orator ltlld the defendant Pratt, or either of of any stich controversy in this cause. He could them, on the not maintain any such suit as this, brought by himself against them, or eitherM them, for such' relief, and this suit includes no such controversythathe can maintain. Upon theSe considerations the suit does not appear to have been, in whole or in any part, removable. Motion granted.
DAVIS & RANKIN BLDG. & MANUF'G CO. v. DIX et a1. (CircUit rOdnrt, Oeirtral DiviSion, W. D. MllilSourl. Octo!:>er 16, 1894.)
purchasers at· the solicitation of the seller's agent. 'The purchasers tAUiqg to proVide land OD wbl/:lh to CODstruct,the creamery, the seller, as
A Contract for the sale arid construction ota creamery was signed by