mann v. rosrmz. 53
“A federal court has no jurisdiction in cases of proceedings to establish a
will. In Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, the supreme court said: * There are,
it is true, in several of the decisions of this court, expressions of opinion that
federal courts have no probate jurisdiction, referring particularly to the estab-
lishment of wills; and such undoubtedly is the case under the existing leg-
islation of congress.’ By this ruling I am bound, and it is conclusive of this
case. See, also, Case of Br0derick’s Will, 21 Wall. 504; Du Vioier v. Hop-
kins, 116 Mass. 125; Yonley v. Lavender. 21 Wall. 276 ;" Tamer v. Tamer,
9 Pet. 174; Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 270; Adams v. Preston, 22 How. 478, P
4783 ‘
As to the third and fourth grounds to remand,-that is, that co-
defendants of Harriet A. Butler Reed are citizens"of the same state as the .
plaintiff, Franklin A. Reed, and that the controversy of Mrs. Butler
Reed is not wholly between citizens of differentstates, and which can
be fully determined between them,—the record shows that Franklin A.,
Reed, the plaintiff, is a citizen of Ohio, and that Adeline E. Reed, a
legatee, and James H ._ Hunt, administrator of Gustavus P. Reed, defend- ·
ants with Mrs. Butler Reed, are citizens of the state of Ohio, and same
state of the plaintiff. If Hunt, administrator, and Adeline Reed, are
necessary parties, and not merely nominal, then the act of March-3, 1887,
does not allow one defendant to remove who may be a citizen of another
state, because then the controversy cannot be fully determined between
Harriet A. Butler Reed, as between her and theplaintitf.
The _state statute provides that "all the devisees, legatees, and heirs of
the testator., and other interested persons, including the executor or ad-
ministrator, must be made parties to the action."
Parties required by the statute to be made can hardly be said to be
merely nominal ones, but must be regarded as necessary parties. If such
necessary parties, then one_of them, Harriet A. Butler Reed, cannot have
a separate controversy with the plaintiff, and whollybetween her and
the plaintiff, which can be fully determined without the presence of the
other parties, as required to be shown to entitle her, as one of the several
defendants, to a removal of the case. V _
_ On both grounds, then, the motion to remand will _be sustained, and
the case remanded to the common pleas of Stark county.
` Nunn e. Fosrns and others.
v (Circuit Court, D. Oregon. June 15, 1887.) l . ·
Rmucnn or CAUSE—APPLICATION ·1·o Rimnm-—Ac*r or 1887-Drvnnsn Cru-
. zE'11$h1dI;laintiE beingthe owner and assignee of a non-negotiable contract.
namely, two judgments for money, brought suit in the state court to set
· - aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances b thejud ment debtor, and to
subject the lands described therein to the satisfaction ofg said judgments, and
· then caused the suit to be removed to this court,·stating in his petition there-
forthat the plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, and the defendants citizens of