Lnzenou v. rose. 7
vidually received large sums of money,-gains and profits from the
sales of the stock of the defendant corporation, or from, the portion
thereof sold; that plaintiff is unable to state definitely the amount
received by said individual defendants, and eachiof them, from the
sales of such stock, or the amount. of profits realized from such sales;
that the defendants have not. accounted for orpaid- over to the cor-
poration the difference between the $10,000,000, represented by the
capital stock, and the actual cost or real value of the property con-
veyed to it by Sanders, nor for their gains on the stock sold by
them; that the defendants, or a majority of them, are still the trus-
tees of the corporation,.whicl1 is in no·condition to prosecute any
action for the relief sought by this action, and neglects to do so; for
which reason the plaintiff brings thiszsuitz l > - — ‘
The relief prayed for is that the defendants may be "declaredetruev
tees of the $10,000,000 represented by the capital stock; and that
they may, collectively and severally, be decreed to account of and
concerning such sum; and also accountfor the gains and profits re-
ceived by each from the<‘sale of the capital stock; that theractual
value of the property conveyed by Sanders be determined by the
court, if it had any value, and credited on. such accounting, and the
amounts so‘ found due be brought into court and paid to a special rc-
ceiver for the benent of all the stockholderswho may join in this suit
or come in under the decree." · ` `· ·
If I understand the complaint rightly, it demands (1)- that the*in-
dividual defendants shall "account” to the corporation, or stock-
holders, for $10,000,000, less such sum as the courtxmay find; the
property conveyed by1Sanders .to·have been worth; (2) that they
"several1y account for the profits received· by each from the salesof
the capital stock." ’ `
In ascertaining whether the cause was removable under section 2
of the act of 1875, it is not necessary to determine what else the com-
plaint may contain, how many causes of action, or whether consistent
or inconsistent, provided it does appear that there is any one sever-
able controversy contained in it which is wholly between citizens of
different states, and may be completely determined without the pres-
ence of the other defendants. If there be such a separable contro-
versy in the suit, then the whole suit is removable under the act of
1875. Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; Hyde v. Buble, 104 U. S.
407, 409; People v. Ill. Gent. R. O0. 16 Fan. Bar. 881. If there is
no such separable controversy as between the defendant Fisk exclu-
sively and the plaintiff, then it is not removable. Id.; Folsom v.
Continental Bank, 14 Fan. Rm. 497. *
The two objects apparently sought bythe complaint—namely, one,
an account to the corporation for $10,000,000, and the other, an ac-
count for profits on the stock sold—are entirely independent, and, as
it would seem, incompatible with each other. i
It is difficult to understand upon what theory the defendants -can be