In the case against Dub there is no doubt tha.t he knew the nature of Dans' business. He was an old friend and an intimate acquaintance of the bankrupt.. He bought goods of the'value of $2,200, when by his own testimony $600 to $JOO would fully stock the IiImall establishment connected with his hotel where he was selling these goods. In the case against Kahn the evidence also is that he was an old friend and knew the nature of Dans' business. In 1867 he gave in his entire stock for taltes at $1,000, yet his purchase from Dub at one transaction amounted to $1,926. His denial that he knew that Dans'was acting with intent to work a fraud on the bankrupt law amounts to nothing. He should have shown that he made inquiry, and that he became satisfied that Dans' purpose was not the purpose which the law declared it, prima facie, to be. The decree must, therefore, be against the defendants for the full amount of the value of the goods bought by them. D. J., concurring.
lliNOVER FIRE INs. 00.
KEOGH and others.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 28,1881.)
Where A., B. and C. on 'the one side, and D. on' the other, are necessary parties to the claim. of D. on the fund in controversy, the case is not removable if A. and D. are citizens of the same state, although the other two parties are citizens of another state.
BLATCHFORD, O. J. The petition for removal alleges that there is no controversy between Estes and Keogh, and that the controversies to which Keogh is a party in the suit, or in which he is interested, are all between Keogh and citizens of New York, namely, Williams, Black & 00., and the Blossoms. But, the pleadings having all been put in before the petition for removal was filed, the controversies, and the questions as to who are the real parties to them, must be judged of by those pleadings. They show that Williams,
HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. V. KEOGH.
Black & Co. claim ·under an assignment made by Estes to them, June 20, 1871; that the Blossoms claim under an attachment against Estes, made October 30, 1869; that Keogh claims under an attachment against Estes made Febr:uary 9, 1878; that Williams, Black & Co. claim that the Blossoms and Keogh have no valid claims under their attachment; that the Blossoms claim priority to Williams, Black & Co., and to Keogh; that Keogh claims that the assignment to Williams, Black & Co. is void as to him, and that his attachment is superior in tight to that of the Blossoms; and that Estes sets up in his answer that the attachments of the Blossoms and of Keogh have become invalidated and are of no force, and that' the assignment to Williams, Black & Co. is valid. It is apparent that Keogh has status to attack either the attachment of the Blossoms or the assignment to Williams, Black & Co., unless he has a valid attachment against Estes, and that Estes is entitled to be heard on that question, under the pleadings, and is a necessary party to that controversy. Claiming, as Estes does in his answer, that the interest he assigned to Williams, Black & Co. shall go towards paying his debt to them, and that that result cannot be prevented by the prior attachment of the Blossoms, because of its invalidity, he is clearly inter. ested in maintaining, as against Keogh, and has a right to do so, under his answer and the other pleadings, the contrary of what Keogh asserts. He, was a necessary party to any controversy between Keogh and the Blossoms, and to any controversy between Keogh and, Williams, Black & Co. Moreover, Keogh cannot reach the fund by successfully attacking the attachment of the Blossoms, without also successfully attacking the assignment to Williams, Black & Co. ; and Estes is, on his answer and its allegations, a necessary party to any attack on that assignment, interested in having it maintained to pay pro tanto his debt to them. So Estes, the Blossoms, and Williams, Black & Co., on the one side, and Keogh on the other, are necessary parties to the claim Keogh makes on the fund; and Estes and Keogh, being both of them citizens of Nol'th Carolina, the case was not remov-
able, although the other two parties were ·oitizens of New York. These views apply to the original removal, as well as to that attempted at the trial. The case must, therefore, be remanded, with costs, and so must the other three cases.
SOJIURMEIER and others.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minne8ota. June, 1881.)
Certain evidence set out in the opinion T.eld to show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and preclude recovery for injuries received by the fall of an elevator.
Motion of Plaintiff'for a New Trial. Tilden R. Selmes, for the motion. Gordon E. Cole, contra. NELSON, D. J. I have again oarefully examllled the evi· dence, and must deny the motion made by plaintiff's coun· sel. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendants for nearly a year previous to the accident, and had often operated the elevator in the mill. He was at work in the packing room of the mill, upon the last floor to which the elevator descended, and was injured by the sudden descent of the elevator, while he was sweeping the floor just under the opening through which the elevator operated. The defendants were using it, and in progress of ascending, when it fell, and one of them had leaped to a floor above as the elevator was passing, and the other came down with it to the room it had started from. The elevator was attached by a steel rope to a drum on a revolving shaft in the upper story of the mill, and could be started or stopped by throwing the belts from loose to fixed pulleys, or from fixed to loose pulleys, on the shaft. An iron rod attached to the machinery, and running down near one of the posts on which the elevator moved up and down, was used