Rep. 849. In the last-named case, LOVE, after citing theauthorities, makes u$&l;OI::.t'he .followhig languaget lIThe" decisions leave no doubt whatever of the power of this court to grant injunctions in cases which have beenLl'egllllarly .removed .from the i state courts; but the power to grant injunctions, and the duty of the court to grant them, prop()sitions." In the viewtbiscollrt takes of these: froIIl the statecoutt, tpat court can take no further legal proceedings therein. In other words, every in hereafteriS,:null and void. Is ita proper; 'pra¢tice to insqch at least some material is abollt to result to the niOv,}ug :par.J;y? ' .In the cQ,lleS befo).'e '. cit,ed" tp,eparty in'VQkiJ;ig ,the aid of the federal court was about to be injured, or his rights seriously complicated, by the proceedings complained of in the state court. The dividing, the Jurisdictili>,l1 of. the cou:m and !hate ,et)Illrt8'lI often so and lmperiectly t1'acedthat. there 18 danger this, a wise s.hould be law-Il ,of' 'oongress, 'enacted: ·in 'purSuance of the .constitu-, tion, are the supreme 111w: of.the land:, and are binding upon the'state as: well as cwrt8;,!file\ law ofl887 imposes.the duty Upon this court of granting or refusing the <>rdarof removal for. ,local prejudice. Whether it is wise for the plaintiff to test the legality of the order of removaL 'by alSSuming that ,iHsivoid,i and':ptoceeding in, the state court:to Vi the Cases. is quite ,Howev,er, iihe cho.oaestodo,so, lcannot' lEle, that 'lbe, 'defeQdants will suffer. ,any, great injury by ,it.; : Should he. howeverl to enforce the judgment, it is not· uQlikely it would bring the rquestions. within the.ruleestablished by ;theisuprem e court in the <lases:befote cited.J:Therquestioll of jutisdictionj;tol!3Y tbeJeast, is not free ,ofrd014<bt;iand:tbere'is a difference of on: thil.t· q'uestion" and, until, it is. seWed by the conrt, no actiQn' seems to.me, oughtto be, taken"umess the exigencies of.,this! qf,the'rAlier,*.beo1utely demand it·. The temporar.y,injlUlQtions asked for .will Qaveto:bedenied.'·, ' I':

kind.,u

'1.

f',!

.,

.'

.1'

r

",:l

"LJi'i, ('

'.".

d .aL.

:;':

f";

'i'

;;.;},,,

:!

i;:

I L.r... :'-llit

J;

cOUfj$t D·.

.!larch '" 1&90,)

cUDdlirIAoit'long, 1887, pl'll11dfng JfOlhth.removal of oaul8ldrcmastate 10 by therein, being J!,ou-reslde;ntIJ" of ' 1 the .the'state,'aoaU!ltf. dprita1r,lilllt' btl a 'single cbntrOverJl C&nDotbe removc!dtwltere · rea state. 'l' . ,
.': J;:;,U

.,

.,":

d,:

;iOn MD1liORI tQJitemand' to Sta,le: ' .. , .' ;A.ctiOJ1,':by: Atkansas Valley, ,sroeltingOompaQyagainst.Margare'
" .. ):

Mining Company, a corporation organized in New York, associated tounder the name and gether and transacting busine$saS ., . \' styIe of the F. W. Ower8, fdr O. J. Hughes, Jr., and J. Taylor, for Ryman,and Compromise Co'. ,(J.S;Thdmas, for ,".. . Cowenhoven. ' ' I'. . " , . .'
(l

'

"

,HAELETT, J. Plaintiff,s Missouri, brings BUit.against two defendants, ·citizens of the state ofColorado,-one defendant a citizen of the state of Ohio, and one defendant a corporation organized in New York. The is upon a contract executed by,defendants as mining partners under the of, Mine." "All are equallya?d generally upon. an?"the achon presents but one smgle controversy. Upon petItIOn of the cItIzen of Ohio ,and the corporation organized in New Xork, the cause refuMed, into this court, and,"it 'now stands upon bi the plaiJtiff to to the districtcourl of the state. Section '2 of the act of 1887', relating·tothe removal Of caUses in which there are, several defendants, alid which' present a sitl[J;le cOntroversy only, 'seeIIlsto reqllire theafill the shall be:non-tesidents olthe state in which the sliitill brought. ," The language .of the act is as follows:, , , .. Any (l.ther suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the cIrc,uit courts of the United States are given jurisdict,ion by preceding section, and which are now pendlng'l or which may hereafter be brought, in any state court, may 'be removed into the circuit cnnrt of the United states for the 'of proper .district by the defendant or defendants therein. being " Under the act of 1875, it was held that, in caSes where there were eral plaintiffs Qr defendants, all parties on one sid\'j,must have a different citizensbipfrom parties on the other side. Removal aurea, 100 U. 457; jJlake:v.McKim, 103 U. S.336. Upon the point of citizellsbip, the act of 1875 was not so clear as is the act of 1887, in respect to the matter ofresidencej. and the rule of interpret;ation adopted in the. cases cited requires that, under the act of 1887, all defendants seeking remova1'allaU be nOD-residents of the state.' Inasmuch as Margaret Cowetihoven and Elmer'T. Butler, two of the defendants, are citizens, and apparently residents,of the state of Colorado, the cause is not removable into'this court under theaetof 1887., The case will be remanded to the district court of Lake county. from whence it was removed.

.n:DERAL,

t

voL 41·

et 01.

.

et

KlllLLOGG

(Circuit Court, D. Kansas. February 24, 1800.'
Ta'UIlTIl-'EQt1ITT

JURlsntC11'ION-P'ARTIEB,' ,", , ' ,. Whereon dissolution of a corporation, OYYl1ing a large number of town lots, such lots are given to a committee of stockholders, to be usoo for the benefit of the town, and the committee conveys the same to the mayor of the town, who conveys them toVBfio].ls persons, with th<l,aBsentof tb.ecommittee, a court 0;1; equity will not, after the lapse of 13 years; inquire into the ,execution of the trust by such committee, in a Buit'between the stockholders of· the corvoration. to Which the mayor's n,ot parties.

,

In

NevisOn, for complainants. " Rosiingfmt, ,Smith Dallas, for respondents.
"

"

,

,J·. ' This a bill presented tp this court ,by three stockholders of a 'corporation known as the l/Arj,{arisas City Town Company" against the ,other stoCkholders and officers of said corporation, for the purpose ofsettling the business of the company, and distributing alleged li.ssets amorig the several parties entitled ,thereto. The corporation was organized in July, 1871, for the purpose of selecting, laying out, and into lots, blocks, alleys, ,and parks, and for the occup!ltion, sale, thesaqle, and the corporation became by the expiration of the time lim.ited in its charter, in July, 1881., The complainants, among other thingsj aver "that prior to and at the ,expiratioo thereof said corporation was the owner of a large amount of property, consisting of abont five hundred lots in said city of Arkansas City and other property, and that said property has not been sold or,convayed"oJlin'any manner disposed of, by said corporation, or by anyone :lawfully acting on its beM1f,and that its title thereto has never bt;!f\olaw.fully divested,. but that the same is corporation property, .manyQf said lots are now occupied by diverspersons advel'sely, llnd in disregard of'the rights of your orators, and the other:persons who $1'e' iQterested therein;. and that said,.property should. be: recovered, relBeryeq, and disposed· of for .the benefit of those who contributed the mopey for. the,pu;JrQhase thereof, or their·assigns." The respondents admH··the of find also the averments as to the stockhQldera· apd. officers,etc.;. also that :said'::coIlporation was the owner of a large amount of real estate now embracing th.e't@wn-site of' Arkansas City; but they deny that, at the time of its dissolution, it had any real estate or other property undisposed of, and aver that there is no property or assets to be accounted for or distributed. The respon:dents' in answer to interrogatory No.4 of complainants' bill, allege as follows:
"In answer to interrogatory four, said defendants say that at the meeting held on the 31st day of July, 1871, when the final dividend was made of the property of said corporation, the follOWing resolution was passed: 'ARKANBAS CITY, KANSAS,July 31,1871. Arkansas City 'fown Company met at the school·house. Arkansas City. On motion, resolved, that the Jots in Arkansas