Opinion of the Court.

ing that 250 shares of its stock stood, when the petition was filed, in the name of Wilson, on its books, and had not since been transferred thereon; that, before the suit was brought, one H. K. Thurber bought the 250 shares from Wilson, and received from him the certificates thereof, by indorsement and delivery, and still held and owned them, and he had notified the president of the corporation of that fact, and claimed the right to have the stock transferred into his own name; and that it was willing to obey the judgment of the court, but ought not to be ordered to cancel or transfer the stock, unless Thurber should be brought before the court, to litigate with Crump the true ownership of the stock.

Crump replied to the answer of the corporation, and filed an amended petition, making Thurber a party to the suit, and praying the same relief as in his original petition. Wilson and Thurber were then each personally served with process in the City of New York. Thurber then came into the State court and filed a petition and a bond for the removal of the suit to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, and the State court made an order removing the cause, under the objection and exception of the plaintiff. The petition proceeded on the ground that Crump was a citizen of Kentucky and Thurber a citizen of New York, and that there was a controversy in the suit between them, which was wholly between citizens of different States, and could be fully determined between them. Nothing was said in the petition for removal about Wilson or the corporation.

Thurber then filed an answer in the Circuit Court, setting forth that he had, on the 26th of October, 1880, purchased the 250 shares from Wilson, for value, and received from him the certificates therefor, three in number, issued by the corporation to, and in the name of, Wilson, with blank forms of assignment and power of attorney on the back, which Wilson signed, and delivered to Thurber, with the certificates; that he was entitled to fill the blanks and surrender the certificates, and have the shares transferred and new certificates issued to him by the corporation; and that he purchased the shares without any knowledge or information of any claim by Crump

Opinion of the Court.

against Wilson. The answer prayed that the shares be decreed to be the property of Thurber and not of Crump, and that the corporation be ordered to cancel the certificates issued to Wilson, and to issue to Thurber new certificates in their place. There was a replication to this answer.

Thurber also filed a cross-bill in the Circuit Court, making as a defendant only the corporation, but not Crump, setting forth himself as a citizen of New York and the corporation as a citizen of Kentucky, and averring the facts as to his purchase of the stock from Wilson, for value, and as to the indorsement and delivery of the certificates by Wilson to him, and praying for judgment against the corporation, that it receive and cancel the certificates issued to Wilson, and issue to Thurber other certificates, in their stead, for the 250 shares.

The corporation answered this cross-bill, saying that it was a mere stake-holder between the parties to the suit, and praying for a proper judgment, which should protect it. There was a replication to that answer.

Then Crump filed in the Circuit Court an amended bill, setting forth that the transaction between Wilson and Thurber was for the fraudulent purpose of protecting the stock for Wilson, and that the certificates were held in secret trust by Thurber for Wilson. Thurber answered that amended bill, denying its allegations. To that answer there was a replication.

Proofs were taken, and, on a hearing, a decree was made dismissing the bill of Crump, and adjudging that Thurber was the true owner of the 250 shares, and was entitled to have the certificates issued to Wilson therefor cancelled, and other certificates issued in lieu thereof, on his application; and it was ordered that the corporation cancel the certificates, and issue or deliver to Thurber, or his order, such new certificates, and that Thurber and the corporation recover of Crump their Wilson had never appeared or answered. Crump has appealed to this court.

costs.

It is assigned for error, that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction of this cause, under § 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, and ought to have remanded it to the State

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