6 FEDERAL nuromnn.
tiff, are citizens of New York, where the main office of the corpora-
tion is also located. The suit was removed to this court upon the pe-
tition of the defendant Fisk, a citizen of New Jersey, under section 2
of the act of 1875, on the ground that the suit contains a controversy
which is wholly between himself and the plaintiff, who are citizens of
different states. A demurrer to the complaint was served by the de-
fendant Fisk, on May 22, 1883, before the cause was at issue as to
the other defendants; and at the June term, which was the nrst term
of the superior court at which the issue of law upon the demurrer as
· to the defendant Fisk could possibly have been- tried, the cause was
removed to this court. It was, therefore, removed in due time, and
the first ground for remanding cannot be sustained. Johnson v. John-
son, 13 Frm. Bur. 193; Cramer v. Mack, 12 Fun. REP. 803; Knowl-
ton v. Congress, etc., 13 Blatchf. 170; Forrest v. Keeler. 17 Blatchf.
522; [S. C. 1 Fun. REP. 459.]
f 2. The only other ground for the motion to remand is that the
cause was not removable at all, because, as it is claimed, it does not
contain any controversy which can be separately determined between
the defendant Fisk and the plaintiff; and this involves an examina-
tion of the nature of the action. The complaint is in equity. In
substance it alleges thatthe defendants, shortly after the organiza-
tion of the company, and acting as its trustees, agreed with one Henry
4 S. Sanders to issue to him as full-paid stock the whole of the capital
stock of the corporation, in consideration of the conveyance to the
corporation by Sanders of certain mining claims and property in Ari-
_ zona, which were of no value for mining purposes, and of the actual
market value of less than $100,000, as the defendants knew; that
shortly afterwards all of said stock was by Sande1·s turned over to
the {ive individual defendants, or some of them, or to them and their
associates and nominees, upon payment of the sum of $46,666.67, as
near as the plaintiff can ascertain, but at any rate not over $100,000,
and that this was done in pursuance of an agreement between the
defendants and Sanders prior to the conveyance of the mining prop-
erty; that the defendants thereafter, assuming to act in behalf ofthe
lcorporation, by certificates of stock issued and circulated by them,
represented to the public, including the plaintiff, that the stock was
full-paid; that the plaintiff purchased his stock in the market as
full-paid stock, relying on such representations; that after the issue
of said stock as aforesaid the corporation had no means of develop-
ing and improving the property purchased, and, failing to work it, it
had become forfeited and passed beyond the control of the corpora-
tion; that upon the purchase of plaintiffs stock a new certificate was
issued to him for 100 shares as full-paid stock, upon his surrender of
the former certificates. t
The complaint then charges "that the individual defendants have
individually sold the stock, or a portion thereof, so turned over to
them, as aforesaid, and that said individual defendants have indi-