Court Opinion

ID: 8629306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:35:06.493547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:42.815944
License: Public Domain

DILLON, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the result of the foregoing opinion, for reasons which I proceed briefly to state.
Two only of the many defendants united in the petition to remove the cause. The removal was sought under the act of 1866 (Rev. St. § 639, cl. 2), the petition for the removal being filed at the September term, 1S7G, of the state court. The petition only sought to remove the cause so far as it related to the two defendants, Winston and Alt, and the state court only ordered the cause as to them to be transferred to this court. As to all the other defendants, it still remains in the state court. Winston, as surviving trustee in the deed of trust, represents all the bondholders, including Alt. A deed of trust was made, purporting to be executed by the plaintiff corporation and one of the defendant corporations, viz.: the Illinois, Missouri and Texas Railway Company, both Missouri corporations, upon property which the plaintiff’s bill claims to belong to it, to secure bonds executed by the said Illinois, Missouri and Texas Railway Company. The bill alleges that the said deed of trust, for want of authority in the plaintiff’s officers to execute it, and for other reasons, did not bind the plaintiff corporation, and is ineffectual to convey its property or create a lien upon it; and the prayer of the bill is that the deed of trust be declared void, so far as it covers the property of the plaintiff (which would seem to be the main security), and that the bondholders under the deed of trust be declared to have no lien upon the said property, and for general relief.
It seems to be too plain to admit of any doubt that, to the bill to annul the deed of trust, the two companies which executed it as grantors are necessary parties. The Illinois, Missouri and Texas Railway Company executed the bonds, and it appears from the bill that this company, by reason of the contracts and conveyances therein set forth, had, or claimed to have, an interest in the property conveyed by the deed of trust. No effectual decree could be made, such as the bill seeks, without the presence of the Illinois, Missouri and Texas Railway Company. Now, no attempt was made to transfer the *34cause, so far as it concerned the company last named. The plaintiff corporation has the right to an adjudication of the case made by its bill. The bill was properly constructed, and contained the parties necessary to secure the relief sought. To the determination of the case made by the bill, the Illinois, Missouri and Texas Railway Company was a necessary party, and there can be no final or effectual determination of the case made by the bill without the presence of that company. If the attempted removal of part of the case here were sustained, this court might decree the deed of trust invalid; and the state court, on the part of the case remaining there, might make a decree precisely the other way; and to both decrees the plaintiff would be a party.
I am of opinion that the case made by the petition for the removal is not one which is embraced within the act of 1SCG, as it is embodied in section 63Í), cl. 2. of the Revised Statutes. It is not, therefore, necessary for me to give any opinion whether the second clause of section 03i> is repealed by the act of March 3. 1S75, or, if not thus repealed, whether it is in conflict with the provisions of the federal constitution, which limits the extent of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. The motion to remand must be allowed. Motion sustained.