C A S E S
ABGUED AND DETERMINED
IN rim
Q 0 O O O
éttuxtrd ,%’mtw Glmmt mul Qmtcxtt Giants.
CHAPMAN ·v. CHAPMAN and others.
(Ovrcuit Court, D. Kansas. June 9, 1886.)
l. REMOVAL on CAUSE·—JURISDICTION—SEPARABLE CoN·r1z0vNnsr—Sunmm·me
LAND T0 PAYMENT or ALIMONY.
An action by a divorced woman against the heirs of her former husband, to
subject lands of which he died seized to the payment of her alimony, does
not present a separable controversy as to any of the defendants.
2. SAME—REMAND.
In such a case, some of the defendants being territorial citizens, with no
right of removal, the entire controversy must be adjudicated in the state
courts.
Motion to Bemand, on Grounds of Citizenship.
H. L. Poplin, for plaintiff.
A. Bergen, for defendants. _
Bsnwnn, J. On motion to remand. This case presents a curious
combination of causes, or supposed causes, of action. Removal was
sought on the ground of citizenship. Several of the defendants are
citizens of territories, and, of course, have no right to a removal. It
is claimed, however, that a separate controversy exists between the _
plaintiff and one of the defendants, and therefore that that defendant
can remove the entire case, she and he being citizens of different
states. The petition alleges that she obtained a decree for alimony _
in 1858, in Ohio; that subsequently, and after a decree of divorce,
her husband, owning land in this state, conveyed that land to his son,
Charles W. Chapman, one of the defendants. He thereafter died,
leaving other children, who are also made parties defendant. She
says that this deed from her husband to Charles W. Chapman was
made in trust, not specifying what the trust was. She also says that
it was made with the intent to defraud his creditors, herself among
others; and she prays that this alimony awarded to her—this de-
cree for alimony—be declared a lien upon this tract; that the deed
v.28F.no.1—1