I ‘ .rArcmN ULHUNTEB. g 51
prevent thedefendants from obtaining a fair and impartial trial in some Q
convenient county of the state. to which the court, under the state law,
might send the cause. The influence of the plaintiff and of his associates .
upon the Chicago board of trade could hardly, in the nature of things, be
felt beyond the immediate locality where the board of trade does busi-
ness and the city of Chicago. I can hardly deem it possible that public
opinion could have been so far prejudiced against these defendants by -
anything which might have occurred in the progress of this litigation in `
the state courts as to have reached the adjacent counties, or, in the lan-
guage ofthe law, "the convenient " counties of the state to which the court
might send this cause for trial, on being satisfied that the defendants
cannot obtain a fair trial in Cook county. I do not, therefore, think
that the existence of prejudice or local influence against the defendants
is shown to exist, as a matter of fact, to such an extent as to justify this
court in taking cognizance of the case. The motion for a certiorari to re-
move the cause from the state court to this court is therefore overruled.
‘ ‘ ~ Pucnm v. Houma jet al. _
C I {Circuit Oowrt. E. D. Wisconsin. March 19, 1889.;
1. Rmrovu. ov CAUSES-SEPARABLE Com·aovmnsr—Jom·r Paurms.
Separate answers tendering separateissues interposed by defendants sued
jointly do not create separable. controversies, within the meaning of the re·
move. acts. V · h
B. S:um+NoN·Bmzvrcm or Jomr Dmmunsnr. ~
Where. in ep suit against a resident living within the district and a nonresi-
dent, the cause of action declared upon is joint. the non·service of process -
‘ upon- the resident does not change thecharacter of the suit so as to entitle the
~ V nongresideut to have it removed as for a separable controversy.
8. Same. j · - Q . » ’ A
Nor is the jurisdiction of the federal. court in such case aided by Rev. St.
U. S., § 73'Lauthorizing the court to entertain jurisdiction as to parties prop- . ‘
. . erly before it, notwithstanding the absence of necessary parties not inhabit-
_ ‘ ants of.~nor found within, the district where suit is brought. and providing
that non-joinder of such parties shall not constitute matter of abatement -or
. ‘ objection to the suit. j _ “
At- Law. ‘ On motion to remand. ° t
Action by M. B. Patchin against W. W. Hunter and John H. Parks,
originally brought in the state court, and by defendant Parks removed` to
this court. ‘ l
Geo; P. Jlhller, for plaintiff. ”
I WL H. Webster, for defendant Parks. ` _
  {Before Gnmsusm and Jenkins, JJ. . f I -
I Jnnxms, J . The plaintiff, a citizen of Wisconsin, brought suit in the
V circuit court of Waupaccacounty, Wis. ,‘against· the defendant Hunter, a
citizen cf, and resident-within the Eastern districtof Wisconsin, ’and