· 4 FEDERAL REPORTER.
that preferences were given in favor of citizens of Massachusetts.
The First National Bank of Chicago hled a petition in the state
court, and gave a bond praying for the removal of the cause to this
, court under the act of 1875, alleging that there was a controversy
which was wholly between the plaintiff and the First National Bank,
and which could be fully determined as between them. The parties
now come before the court, and the plaintiff raises the question
whether the case was removable under the statute. There was no
issue formed in the state court, and therefore the question must be
decided upon the bill and the petition of the First National Bank,
and it seems to me there can be no doubt but that there is a contro-
versy which is wholly between the plaintiff and the bank; that is to
_ say, whether the judgment was a valid judgment as against the Erm,
and the plaintiff as one of its creditors. The bank is not interested
in any controversy which the plaintiff may have with other judgment
creditors of the firm. Its position is that the judgment in favor of
the bank is valid, irrespective of what may be true of any other claim
or judgment. _
It is objected that there are other defendants who are citizens of
the same state with the plaiutiqf, and if the court takes jurisdiction
of the case and of the various controversies which arise, it must de-
· cide controversies between citizens of the same state. That may be
true, but the supreme court of the United States has decided, in Bar-
ney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, that in a case like this the applicaton
for removal takes with it to the federal court the whole case, and
therefore the controversies between the plaintiff and the citizens of
Massachusettsjwho are defendants with others, must also come into
thiscourt. This being in the nature of a creditor’s bill, which charges
illegal and fraudulent acts affecting the rights of the plaintiff against
different individuals of different states and different corporations, it
can hardly, therefore, be considered a case where the different con-
troversies are so far separated as that one can be removed without the
others. In Barney v. Latham one of the objections taken to the re—
moval of the case was that the Winona & St. Peter Land Company, one
of the defendants, was a corporation of Minnesota, of which state one
of the plaintiffs was a citizen; and the court held, notwithstanding
that fact, the cause was removable, at the same time saying that to the
other controversies in the case, independent of the one which author-
ized the removal, the land company was not an indispensable party,
although it might be a proper party. That is true`in this case. The
citizens of Massachusetts who are made defendants may be proper
parties, but they are not indispensable parties, to the controversy
between the plaintiff and the First National Bank of Chicago. The
bill might have been nled by the plaintiff against the members of the
Erm and the bank, without making the other defendants parties.
And thenthe defendants, citizens of Massachusetts, have not been
served with process, and never may personally appear in the case.