Opinion of the Court.

court. This objection is well taken. It is true that there is, in the suit, a controversy between Crump and Thurber, but it is a controversy to which the corporation is an indispensable party. Crump brought the controversy into court as one between himself on one side, and Wilson and the corporation on the other side; and throughout Crump maintained that Thurber had no right to take the place of Wilson, because the transactions between Wilson and Thurber gave Thurber no greater right than Wilson had. The controversy which Crump asked to have adjudicated was one in which he should be declared to be the owner of the shares, and in which to give him the fruition of such decree, and enable him to stand as the legal owner of the shares, and be recognized as such on the books of the corporation, there should be a decree ordering the corporation to cancel on its books the evidence of the ownership by Wilson, and to issue to Crump certificates for the shares. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must be determined, for the purposes of this case, by the status of the parties, and the nature of the relief which had been asked by the plaintiff, at the time of the application for removal. If the decree of the Circuit Court had been in favor of Crump, it would have enforced a right in favor of a citizen of Kentucky against a corporation of Kentucky. That corporation could not have removed the suit, by showing that a citizen of New York was the other claimant of the stock. The event of the suit, a decree in favor of Thurber, on the merits, against Crump and the corporation, is not a proper test of the jurisdiction. If Thurber had brought the suit originally in the State court, against Crump and the corporation, it could have been removed; or he might have brought it originally against them in the Circuit Court. But in the present decree, Crump's bill is dismissed on the merits, and of course he is adjudged to have no rights against the corporation, and costs are decreed against him in favor of the corporation.

This case falls distinctly within a series of rulings made by this court. Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336; Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407; Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130; Shainwald v. Lewis, 108 U. S. 158; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S.

Statement of Facts.

187; Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229; Thayer v. Life Association, 112 U. S. 717; N. J. Cent. Railroad Co. v. Mills, 113 U. S. 249; Sully v. Drennan, 113 U. S. 287; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Wilson, 114 U. S. 60; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57; Pirie v. Tvedt, ante, 41.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with a direction to remand it to the State court, for want of jurisdiction, with costs to Crump against Thurber, in the Circuit Court.

STEWART & Others v. DUNHAM & Others.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.

Submitted April 20, 1885-Decided May 4, 1885.

When a creditor's bill in equity is properly removed from a State court to a Circuit Court of the United States on the ground that the controversy is wholly between citizens of different States, the jurisdiction of the latter court is not ousted by admitting in the Circuit Court as co-plaintiffs other creditors who are citizens of the same State as the defendants.

On appeal by defendants from a decree of a Circuit Court on a creditor's bill, in which the judgments are several, for the payment of amounts adjudged to creditors severally, this court has jurisdiction only over such as appeal from a decree for payment to a creditor of a sum, exceeding the sum or value of $5,000. As to all others the appeal must be dismissed. In the absence of fraud a transfer by a debtor in Mississippi of all his property to one of his creditors in satisfaction of the debt is valid; nor is it invalidated if, before it was made, the same property had been transferred by the debtor to a trustee to secure the same debt in like good faith, by an instrument which was void under the statutes of Mississippi, by reason of its form and contents, and if the said trustee joins in the transfer by the debtor. The facts in this case do not establish the charge that the sale of the property to the creditor was made with a purpose to hinder or defraud creditors.

This was a bill in equity by creditors to reach property of the debtor alleged to have been fraudulently transferred, as against the creditors.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. T. C. Catchings for appellants.

Mr. John F. Hanna and Mr. James M. Johnston for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees who composed the firms of Dunham, Buckley & Co., who were citizens of New York, and of Edwin Bates & Co., who were citizens of New York and South Carolina, filed their bill in equity, on July 14, 1881, in the Chancery Court of Jefferson County, Mississippi, against John W. Broughton, and Andrew Stewart, Andrew D. Gwynne, and P. H. Haley, composing the firm of Stewart Bros. & Co., and others, all of whom were citizens either of Mississippi or of Louisiana.

On September 16, 1881, the complainants filed a petition for the removal of the cause from the State court to the Circuit Court of the United States for that district, on the ground of citizenship, the amount in controversy being in excess of $500 in value, and presented a bond in conformity with the provisions of law. This was denied, notwithstanding which a certified transcript of the proceedings in the cause was filed in the Circuit Court on November 3, 1881, and that court proceeded thereon to final decree.

The complainants in the bill were creditors severally of Broughton, and its object and prayer were to set aside a conveyance of a stock of merchandise, made by him to the defendants Stewart Bros. & Co., alleged to be fraudulent as against his creditors, and was filed on behalf of the complainants and all other creditors who might come in and share the costs of the litigation.

After the cause was removed into the Circuit Court, the bill was amended by permitting Sigmond Katz, Jacob Katz, Nathaniel Barnett, and Selvia Barnett, partners as Katz & Barnett, and John I. Adams and W. H. Renaud, composing the firm of John I. Adams & Co., creditors respectively of Broughton, to become co-complainants. The members of the firm of Katz & Barnett are described as "resident citizens of and doing business in the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, and in the City of New York, State of New York." The citizenship

Opinion of the Court.

of those who constitute the firm of John I. Adams & Co. does

not appear.

08

On final hearing, on November 25, 1882, a decree was rendered in favor of the complainants, finding that the transfer and conveyance of his property by Broughton to Stewart Bros. & Co., described in the pleadings, was made with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud the complainants and other creditors of Broughton, with the knowledge and connivance of Stewart Bros. & Co., and the same was thereby cancelled, set aside, and declared to be null and void. The decree proceeds as follows: "It appears to the court that complainants, at and before the making of said pretended transfer and conveyance, werę, and still are, creditors of the said John W. Broughton, and that the amount due each of them respectively, including interest to this date, is as follows: Dunham, Buckley & Co., ten thousand two hundred and twenty-two dollars ($10,222.50); Edwin Bates & Co., four thousand three hundred and ninty-one dollars ($4,391.08); John I. Adams & Co., seven hundred and six dollars ($706.37) and Katz & Barnett, nine hundred and thirty dollars ($930.82). Total, sixteen thousand two hundred and fifty dollars ($16,250.77). It appears to the court that the defendant John W. Broughton is insolvent, and without property or means, and that the defendants Stewart Bros. & Co. had in their hands and possession, at the time of filing the bill of complaint in this cause, and still have, property, assets, and money, being the same fraudulently transferred and conveyed to them by the defendant John W. Broughton, as aforesaid, and the proceeds of the same, amounting to a sum largely in excess of the said sum of $16,250.77, due complainants as aforesaid. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the defendants, John W. Broughton and Andrew Stewart, Andrew D. Gwynne, and P. H. Haley, composing the firm of Stewart Bros. & Co., do pay to the complainants the above-mentioned sums respectively due them, with interest thereon at the rate of six (6) per cent. per annum from this date until paid, that is to say: To Dunham, Buckley & Co., ten thousand two hundred and twenty-two dollars ($10,222.50); to Edwin Bates & Co., four thousand three hundred and ninety

82

Opinion of the Court.

one dollars ($4,391.08); to Katz and Barnett, nine hundred and thirty dollars ($930.82); and to John I. Adams & Co., seven hundred and six dollars ($706.37); for which amounts and costs executions in favor of said creditors respectively may issue as at law." The appeal is from this decree.

The appellants assign as error, that the court proceeded to decree, after admitting Katz and Barnett and John I. Adams & Co. as co-complainants, alleging, that, as the case then stood, it was without jurisdiction, as the controversy did not appear to be wholly between citizens of different States. nis, of course, could have furnished no objection to the remo al of the cause from the State court, because at the time these parties, had not been admitted to the cause; and their introduction afterwards as co-complainants did not oust the jurisdiction of the court, already lawfully acquired, as between the original parties. The right of the court to proceed to decree between the appellants and the new parties did not depend upon difference of citizenship; because, the bill having been filed by the original complainants on behalf of themselves and all other creditors choosing to come in and share the expenses of the litigation, the court, in exercising jurisdiction between the parties, could incidentally decree in favor of all other creditors coming in under the bill. Such a proceeding would be ancillary to the jurisdiction acquired between the original parties, and it would be merely a matter of form whether the new pȧrties should come in as co-complainants, or before a master, under a decree ordering a reference to prove the claims of all persons entitled to the benefit of the decree. If the latter course had been adopted, no question of jurisdiction could have arisen. The adoption of the alternative is, in substance, the same thing.

It is, however, objected by the appellees, Edwin Bates & Co., Katz & Barnett, and John I. Adams & Co., that, as to them respectively, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, for the reason that the decrees in their favor are several, and that the amounts adjudged to be paid to them respectively do not exceed the sum or value of $5,000.

On the authority of Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall., 208; Schwed