8 FED1:nAL,_ REPORTER.
that several answers are filed by the different lienholders, which raises
separate issues, does not create separate controversies, within the
meaning of sub. 2, § 2, Act 1875. ·
The rule is very clearly laid down by Mr. Justice MILLER, on the
_ circuit, in Wilson v. St. Louis at S. F. Ry. U0., 22 Fed. Rep. 3, after- -
wards affirmed by the supreme court, (114 U. S. 60, and 5 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 738,) as follows:
"’1`hat if a non-resident party has an interest in a controversy which is
separate and distinct, and does not necessarily involve the interest of the
other defendants in the issue, or the other party on the same side, he can
remove the whole case into the federal court. On the other hand, if the
interests of the other party are so identified and so mixed up that they must
and should be decided together, and depend on the final decree, which must
depend upon and involve the rights of both parties, then it cannot be removed
when one of the parties is a citizen of tl1e same state with the plaintiff or
defendant."
This, I think, is the case here. The rights of all the parties are
intimately blended with the foreclosure, and all should be deter-
mined, and made to depend, on.one final decree. The plaintiffs and
the principal defendants, the mortgagors, all reside in Wisconsin;
and the separate answers of the different claimants and lienhclders
upon the same property do not constitute separate and distinct con-
troversies, within the meaning of the law. And if the claim made
by the bank could be considered as a separate cause of action, still
the defendant James B.·Giun has such an interest in that contro-
versy adversely to the bank, and being a resident of the same state,
as to prevent a removal.
V The case will be remanded to the circuit court for La Fayette
county, from whence it came to this court.
Romnson v. Bunmns and others.
(Oircuit Court, D. Kansas. June 9, 1886.)
1. EQUITY-DECREE—ENROLLlIENT—AMENDMENT.
Decrees in equity are considered and treated as having been formally en-
rolled at the term they were rendered, and no alteration thereof, other than
the correction of mere clerical errors, can thereafter be allowed, on motion.
2. SAME-B1LL or REVIE\V—CORRECTING Ducnnn,
After enrollment of a decree, the only regular and safe way to correct a
mistake therein is bv a bill of review
Motion to open a decree, and correct an erroneous uescr1pt1on of
lands therein, after a sale and confirmation thereunder.
O. A. Bassett, for complainant.
Banwrzn, J. In this case there has been a decree, sale, and coniir-,
mation. Everything is complete. It turns out, on examination, that