6 . J FEDERAI; REPORTEIE r `
of a contract concerningthe samel · In such. a proceeding a courtofl eq-
uity operates by its decree in persmmm, on the defendants, and not in
rem, on the subjectymatterg and therefore it matters not whether the land
which is the subject of the contract is within the territorial jurisdiction
of the court or not. If the court gets jurisdictionof the parties it has
jurisdiction to determine what, if any, contract exists between them,
and enforce it against the party in default, and may compel obedience
to its decree by proceedings in the nature of punishment for contempt. ‘ 3
Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1317; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 743.
» ,.But, assuming, as I do, that “the claim " of the plaintiff is within the
purview of the act of 1887, this court has jurisdiction in this case without
reference to the locality of theland, simply because congress by that act
has conferred it.' The petitioner is required to bring his suit, not in the
.district·where the land is situated,“but in that in which he resides. The
United States is potentially existent or resident throughout the states and
territories-,.and Qagrees by the terms of the act to submit to the jurisdiction
A of the court in which the suit is brought, on due notice thereof being
givento its attorney and representative. And thus the court gets juris-
diction of the parties and the cause, and it is immaterial. either under
the statute or the generalprinci ples of equity jurisdiction, where the land
forwhich the patent is sought may lie.
. T-he demurrer is overruled. A
SE11D01w 1:. VIRGINIA, T. & C. S. 6: I. Co. et al. SEDDON, Trustee, 1:.
SAME. W. C. SEDDON v. SAME. PAcE v. SAME. DOOLEY v. SAME.
. » MABEN v. SAME. LEAKE v. SAME.
  i _ (Circuit Oowri, W D. Virginia. August 7, 1888.)
1.,REMOVAL or CAUSES-·CITIZENBkIP or PARTIES.
· · Ina suit against a corporation audits directors jointly, to cancel subscrip-
tions to the corporate stock, and to compel the defendants to refund the
amounts already paid on the same, the directorsare not merely nominal
parties; and where one ofthem is a citizen of the District of Columbia, or a
citizen ofthe same state as plaintiff, the suit is not removable under act Cong.
March 8, 1887, § 2, providing that any suit in which the controversy is whol y
between citizens of different states shall be removable to the United States "
circuit court} _ ‘
B. SAME-—·RECORD AND Pmrrrron.
= A record and petition for removal of a cause from the state to the federal
courts, which fails to show the citizenship of the petitioners at the time the
suit was commenced, does not entitle them to a removal.
On Motion to Remand. _ "" V ,
Seven suits, in which Thomas Seddon, Thomas Seddon, trustee,
James B. Pace, James H. Dooley, W. G. Seddon, J. G. Maben, and T.
._.¤_Concerning the removal of causes under the act of March 8, 1887, on the round of
diverse citizenship, see Cooley v. McArthur, 35 Fed. Rep. 372, and note; V7he1a¤ V.
Railroad Co., Id. 849. ‘ ‘ `