muenou ‘v. rece. 4 5
The only question there can be, therefore, in this case, is whether
congress had the power to authorize the removal of a cause where
there was one controversy between citizens of different states, and
another between the plaintiff and some defendants who were citizens
of the same state with him. V No question seems ever to have been
made by the courts as to the right of congress to pass such a law,
and therefore I think the court will order the transcript to be filed
and the case to be docketed in this court. i l
See City of Chicago v. Hutchinson, 15 Fm). Bar. 129. r .
LANGDON v. Food. V A t » P
_ (Uircuit Uourt, S. D. New York. July 16, 1883.) t , _ . i
1. REMOVAL—ACT or'1875, 9 2—Bnvma.m1.m Cournovnasr-Mmnie Conroxu-
rrouf-Fnaununnnr Onemrzurron. ‘   ,
An action against several defendants may be removed to the circuit court by
one of them,against whom alone there is a separable controversy, which can be
fully determined without the presence of the other defendants, no matter what
additional controversies or grounds of action the complaint may contain.
2. Surah- Mmme C0RP0RATI0N—FBAUDUI4ENT Oaeanrzarron-Inman Issim
or ‘rocx. ,
Where the trustees of a mining company, with $10,000,000 nominal capital,
at its organization issued all its stock as full-paid, in the purchase of certain
mining property worth less than $100,000, and then, in pursuance of a previous
agreement with the grantor of the land, took back au assignment 0 all the
stock to themselves, and paid to the seller of the property less than $100,000,
and then put the stock on the market as full·paid stock, and sold it for their
individua account, some of which the plaintif purchascd,_hcLd, in an action
brought by the plaintiff to compel the trustees individually to " account " for
$10,000,000, and also that each of them severally account for their profits on
such sales of stock, that the complaint charged no joint account or community
_ of interest in such sales or profits on stock sold, and that in respect thereto the
controversy was severable, as neither, if accountable at all could be held for
the profits of the others, and the profits of each could be determined without
tl; presence of the other defendants, and that the cause was, therefore, remov-
a e. i
Motion to Remand. K
John R. O’D0n~nelL and Grove M. Harwood, for plaintiff.
E. F. Hyde, for defendant.
Baown, J. This action was brought in the superior court of this
city by the plaintiff, as a stockholder in the Silver Era Mining Com·
pany, in behalf of himself and all other stockholders. The company
was organized as a corporation under the laws of this state in Feb-
ruary, 1880, to have a capital of $10,000,000, divided into 100,000
shares of $100 each. The defendants in the suit are the corporation,
and five individual defendants who are alleged to have been the
trustees ofthe corporation at the time of its formation, and during the
first year afterwards., Three of the defendants, as well as the plain-
is ' V I
}