WILSON v. sr. Loms & s. F. BY. 00. 5
he can remove the whole case into the federal courts. On the other
hand, if the interests of the other parties are so identihed and so
mixed up that they must and should be decided together, and de-
pend on the final decree, which must depend upon and involve the
rights of both parties, then it cannot be removed, where one of the
parties is a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff or defendant.
I think such is the case here. The main relief sought which would _
satisfy Wilson is that he be placed on the books of the St. Louis &
San Francisco Railroad Company as the owner of that stock. To do
that, that company has something to do. They resist him. The
powers of this court are called into operation to compel them to do
that thing. Whether, they should do it or not depends upon the fact
of whether Wilson is the rightful owner of the stock, and that de-
pends upon whether the sale of the stock was properly made, and
whether he (Wilson) acquired the right to the stock which stood in ,
the name of the Seligmans, on the books of the railroad company, as
the owners of the stock ought to be bound by any decree which makes
the transfer out of their name into Wils0n’s name. If they are not
bound by it the act is of very little value to Wilson. If they can go
on and show they owned the stock, or that some vendee of theirs owned
the stock, why Wilson gets no good of the decree. He has the right,
therefore, that the question in whose name the stock shall stand on
the book of the company shall be before the court, and that the decree
shall bind him at the same time that it binds the railroad company.
The act to be done, the interests sought to be enforced against both
these parties affects both, and both should be bound by it, and there-
fore it is a case not transferable to the circuit court of the United
States, because the railroad company is a citizen of the same state _
with Wilson, the plaintiff. The case will be remanded.
I wish to suggest, however, as I have done several times of late on
the circuit, that in these cases of removal, when remanded, if the court
commits an error it is speedily remediable in the supreme court of
the United States. Take this particular casein which the order to
remand is made. The other party can take a writ of error to·mor-
row, have the record filed in the supreme court of the United States
on the first day of the term, go there and make his motion to have
the case advanced and heard, prepare his brief, submit it to the court,
and it can be decided within 10 days from the second Monday in
October.
The court has found this trouble in these cases: that where a case
is not remanded, the court goes on and exercises jurisdiction, and it
comes upon a writ of error afterwards, but in cases where it is re-
manded the federal courts suspend and do nothing at all. Our court
has felt the necessity of bringing that class of cases within the rule
of advancement, so that they are advanced and heard out of their
order always, when the party against whom the judgment is rendered
takes the necessary steps to have it reversed; so it is with less hesi-