Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/375

BUOEUAN V. PALIBAÏ)B LAHD OOi S67 �contract of îts own by the authority of the state, has no right to set up the state's supposed interest to defeat au action to enforce it. �No relief sought by the bill woxild, by any decree we are asked to pass, oonchide any rights of the state of Maryland. We are of opinion that these obieotious to the oomplainant's biU must be overruled. ���Uasoabet Bttoeha.n, by her next friend, ete., v. The Pau* BADx Lamd Gohfanï and others. �{OireuM Court, D. New Jertey. March 16, 1880.) �Remotai. op Cause— Nbckssàbt Pabtibs to Petition— Act of Maboh 3, 1875. — Where the removal of a cause is prayed for under the act of Alarch 3, 1875, upon the ground that "the controversj In the suit U between citizens of different states," it is necessary that ail the parties, plaintifC or defendant, should join in the petition for removal. �Saïib— Suit sr a Makribd Woman— Next Pribnd— In a suit by a married woman, her next friend bas no interest in any controversy in- Tolved in the suit, within the meaning of the act of Marcli 3, 1876. �Motion by plaintiff to remand. �Nixon, J. The motion is to remand this suit to the court of chancery of New Jersey, in which proceedings have been taken to remove it into this court under the act of March 8, 1875. �The bill of complaînt was filed in that courf by Margaret Euckman, a citizen of the state of New York, wife of Elisha Ruckman, by her next friend, Samuel M. Hopping, a citizen of the state of New Jersey, for the foreclosure of a certain indenture of mortgage to secure the sum of $272,286.75, executed by one John L. Bronnell and wife to the defendant Elisha Euckman, on Tarions tracts of land in the eounty of Bergen, and state of New Jersey, and alleged to have been assigned by the said Elisha to his wife, the complainant, through one Bichard L. Bimonson. �Elisha Buckman, living apart from his wife, was also a eit< ��� �