. wmson v. S1'. LoU1¤,.A¤ s. rr. ar. co. 3
the fourteenth of November, 1877. The plaintilfs, in their petition
for removal, simply seek to remove the suit or proceeding between
them and the claimant, it being conceded that no removal could be
had of the original suit against A. Bruhn, the same having been
fully determined in the state court. But it is claimed by plaintiffs
that the suit or proceeding against H. J. Dillon, claimant, is an in-
dependent proceeding, and not having been heard and determined in
said state court can be removed and heard in this court; all of which,
it seems to me, depends upon the ruling of the supreme court of the
United States before referred to, and in accordance with which this
case must be decided.
It seems to me that this cause must be remitted to the district
court of Bowie county, Texas, from whence it came; and it is so
ordered. l
Wmsoiv v. Sr. Louis & S. F. RY. Co. and others}
(Circuit Court, EC D. Missouri. _Beptember 25, 1884.) ’ .
1. Rmmovar. on Cases mr A Pswrr wmmn Oo-Dnsnumnr on Co-Prsruirrmr is
nor Enrrmmo ro Remover,.
Where a non-resident party has an interest in a controversy in a state court
which is separate and distinct from, and does not necessarilyinvolve the inter-
est of, the other defendants in the issue or the other party on the same side, he ·
can remove the case into the federal court; but if the interests of the parties
on the side of the party desiring the removal are so identified and mixed up
that they must and should be decided together, and the final decree must de-
pend upon and involve the rights of both parties, then it cannot be removed,
where one of the parties on that side is a citizen of the same state as the ad- .
verse party. .
2. SA.M1c—PAn*r1ns—OAsm Srunn.
A., after recovering a judgment against B., a corporation, had an execution re-
turned nulla bona, and then took proceedings under the Missouri law to subject
the stockholdersto personal liability, and in those proceedings obtained an order
against C., and had an execution issued against him, under which the sheriff
levied upon and so,ld certain shares of stock standing in C.’s name on the books
of a corporation called D. A. purchased some of the stock and received certifi-
cates of sale from the sheriff, and iinding the stock unavailable because D. would
not recognize him as a stockholder, he instituted suit in the state court to com-
pel D. to acknowledge him as the owner of the stock, to have it revistered in
his name on the company’s books, and to permit him to receive dividends, and
he made C. a party on the ground that the stock stood in his name on D.’s
books, C. filed an answer claiming that he had sold said stock and delivered
the certificates therefor to the purchaser prior to the time said judgment was
rendered against him and had no interest in tho stock at the time of said sher-
iff’s sale and has none now. D. and A. are citizens of Missouri, C. of New
York, and, the case having been removed to this court, A. moved to remand it,
held that, under the mle as above stated, the case must be remanded.
3. Pancrrom m Supanmn Gounr as ro Rmmnnno Casas.
Ssmble, that remanded cases, if taken up, are advanced and heard out of
their order in the supreme court, on motion. _
Imported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.