Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/559

BXJRKB V. FLOOD. 551 �ground to prosecute an action for contribution, then any determination as to an accounting, in a proceeding -where ail of the parties interested are not present and bound by the determination, cannot be regarded as a final determination as to those parties within the meaning of the statute author- izing the removal of the case. �The fact of a liability to further litigation as between the parties, to ultimately determine their rights as between them- selves, upon reasonable ground, is itself sufficient to render the determination not final as to Mackey and Fair, without reference to the ultimate resuit of such rene^wed litigation. I think I see a reasonable liability to such further litigation in various possible aspects that may be presented, whether the acts of Plood, O'Brien, Mackey and Fair tum out to be part- nership acts, and the moneys received by them from the cor- poration partnership assets or not. The court is not now caUed upon to detetmine the merits of this case, or the ulti- mate rights of these parties between themselves, but only to ascertain whether a decision of the branch of the suit between complainant and Mackey and Fair, without the presence of the other parties, is likely to be a final determination of the whole controversy as to them, so that there shall be no further ground to litigate their rights as to these same transactions with the other parties to them. Looking at the case from any point of view, then, it seems clear to me that there can- not be a "final determination of the controversy" as to Mackey and Fair, or either of them, or as to anybody else, without the presence of the Pacific Wood, Lumber & Flume Company, Flood, and the representatives of O'Brien. Indeed, nothing would be finally determined as to any of the parties in a suit against a portion of the defendants. �I suppose the right of citizens of California to have their controversies among themselves adjudicated in the state courts is as absolute and indefeasible as that of a citizen of Nevada to have his controversy with a citizen of California adjudicated in the national courts. Indeed, in the state courts the jurisdidietion is general and universal, while that of the national courts is limited to the cases expressly provided ��� �