KANSAS CITY et T. BY. co. 1:. INTERSTATE LUMBEB co. 9
said directors pay to your orator the said sums paid by him on account of said
stock, with interest on each payment from its date; that the said estate and
debts of said company which have been attached in this cause be subjected to
the payment of what is due your orator." -
The charges in the bill and the prayer for relief make a single contro-
versy. It is not a separable one, so as to enable some of the defendants
to remove the cause into this court. The plaintiffs have sued the de-
fendants jointly, as they had a right to do, and they must be treated as
joint defendants, and real parties to the controversy. Railroad Cb. v.
Mills, 113 U. S. 256, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Pima v. Tvedt, 115 U. S.
41-43, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034, 1161; Sloane v.Anderso#n, 117 U. S. 278,
279, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 602, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep.
32; Wire Hedge Oo. v. Fuller, 122 U. S. 535, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1265.
This ground for reninding, to-wit, that the defendant Frederick W.
Huidekoper is a citizen of the District of Columbia, and not of any state,
and that the controversy is single and not separable, applies alike to all
of the suits, and is_ sufficient cause for remanding them all. ~
» It further appears from the record that the defendant John M. Bailey
is a citizen of the state of Virginia, and that the plaintiffs in tive of the
suits, viz., Thomas Seddon, Thomas Seddon, trustee, James B. Pace, “
James H. Dooley, and T. C. Leake, Jr., are citizens of the same state.
J. C. Maben, the plaintiff in another suit, is a citizen of the state of New
York, the same state of which the defendants George S. Scott, William
P. Clyde, John H. Inman, A. H.- Bronson, and Extine Norton are citi-
zens. In all of these suits, then, it is clear that the requisite citizenship
,to give this court jurisdiction does not exist. The opposing parties in
the suits have not each a different state citizenship. · ` I
Other reasons are assigned by counsel for remandingl these causes, but
it is unnecessary to consider them. The foregoing are sutiicieut. Or-
ders will be entered in all the causes, remanding them to the state
court. »
Kansas Crrv & T. RY. Co. v. Iurnnsrarn Lrmman Co.
‘ (Oircult Court, WZ D. Jlhssouri, W D. August 27, 1888.)
1. Rmuovnr. or ‘C.uJsas-Morrow ro REMAND-·TIME on Hmmne. ~-
Under the removal acts of 1875 and 1887, § 3, requiring the party removing
the cause to give bond for entering in the United States circuit. court, on the
first day of its next session, a copy of the record, and for appearing and en-
tering bail, etc., and providing that, such copy being entered, the cause shall
proceed as if_ it had been commenced there, the United _Stat-es circuit pourt
as no power to remand a cause so removed, for want of Jurisdiction prior to
the return-day, that being the next regular term after the removal.
2. Smn—Pnocnnuxn Arran Rnmov.u.——Emn~mNr DoM.u¤—Arrorurmn¤r or
Comnssromrns. ‘ .
Under the Missouri statute for the condemnation of land by railway conir
panics, providing that a summons shall be issued to the owner, giving him 10