·52 FEDERAL nnromna, vol. 38.
the defendant Parks, a citizen of the state of Michigan, to recover the
amount of a promissory note for $3,200, alleged to have been made by
_ the defendants as copartners under the firm name of Parks & Hunter.
The record discloses that process was served on Hunter March 29, 1886,
and on Parks October 12, 1886; the latter defendant duly pleading to
-the action denying the alleged copartnership and the execution by him
_ of the note declared upon. The defendant Hunter made default. On
the 4th of January, 1887, the defendant Parks presented his petition in
the state court for the removal of the suit to this court, alleging a sep-
arable controversy between himself and the plaintiff. On January 20,
1887, the state court, by order, removed the suit into this court, where
the record was docketed on the 22d day of April, 1887. The plaintiff
now moves to remand the cause for want of j urisdiction in this court. .
At the hearing there was conflict touching the fact of service of pro-
cess upon the defendant Hunter; he denying service. Jurisdiction here
does not hinge upon the fact of such service. This decision proceeds
upon the postulate that, as claimed by the defendant, no process was
I served upon Hunter, the resident defendant.
The cause of action is joint. In such case there can be no separable
controversy. Separate answers tendering separate issues interposed by
defendants sued jointly_ do not createpseparable controversies. Railroad
Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52, 5 Sup. Ot. Rep. 735; Railroad Co. v. Wilson,
114 U. S. 60, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 738; Sturm v. New York, 115 U. S. 248,
6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28. At common law there could be no recovery against
joint debtors until they were all, if living, summoned; or" those not pos-
sible tobe summoned were outlawed. Tofacilitate proceedings against
joint debtors, the statute was enacted which provides that when process
is served upon one or more, but not all, of the defendants prosecuted
jointly, the plaintiff may proceed against those served, and, upon recov-
ery, may enter judgment in form against all jointly indebted, enforce-
able against the joint property of all, and the separate property of the
defendant served. Rev. St. Wis. § 2884. In such case provision isalso
made whereby the defendants not served may be subsequently sum-
' moned, and bound by the judgment. Rev. St. Wis. §§ 2795-2798. In
1-Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57, 5. Sup. Ct. Rep. 746, it was ruled
`thatan action against three defendants sued jointly, one of whom was a
citizen of the same state with the plaintiff, could not be removed into the
federal courts under the second clause of the second section ofthe act of
_March 3, 1875. There the two non-resident_defendants_ had answered,
P [denying_ joint liability;_the resident,defendant making default. The
court, however, declared that a separate controversy is not introduced
into the case by separate defenses to the same cause of action; that the
default of the resident defendant was unimportant, thelsuit being still on
joint causes of action, and the plaivntiffwas entitled, if to anyreliet`, to
ajoint judgment against all the defendants. In Brooks v. Clark, 119 U.
MS. 502, 7 Sup. Ct._ Rep. 301, a citizen of Pennsylvania sued a citizen of
_Pcnnsylvania and a citizen of New York as joint debtors »_in_a—,state court
lofthe formerstate, serving process, onlytupon theresident defendant.