Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/414

402 • '■-' FEDERAL REPORTER. �application was set down for hearing at the March term, 1875, and notice to the stockholders was ordered to be served by publication in a newspaper, and by sending the sarae through the mail. At th& said March term, notice having been so given, the said L. Schoonover was appointed receiver, and authorized to dispose of the assets, col- lect the assessments from stockholders, and to pay the debts. There was no appearance for the stockholders. The court from time to time thereafter ordered assessments upon the stock to be made and <5ollected, and the receiver from time to time reporfced as to his doings, and the proceedings were still pending and imdisposed of in the state court, when, on the seventh day of November, 1881, the said Boone and Hinckley appeared for the first time, and filed therein their peti- iion of intervention, by which they allege in substance that they are, and have ever since the commencement of said proceedings been^ resi- dents and citizens of Illinois, and that they have had no notice of said proceedings. They aver that a certain large claim against the corporation, held by one Stacy, for whom the said Schoonover, the receiver, is assignee, is fraudulent; and that the said Schoonover has not defended against it; and that Stacy is in fact largely indebted to ibe incorporation. Frand, collusion, and conspiraey are charged ; and the prayer ia that there maybe accounting as between Stacy and the corporation, and that the receiver may be enjoined frotn proceeding, by suits at law or otherwiae, to eollect from the intervenprs .their unpaid stock, and applying the same to the payment of the alleged fraudulent claim of Stacy; also that the order appointing said Schoonover as receiver be set aside. The rule by which yfe are to be ■giTided in determining whether this is a removable'Cohtrbversy has been settled by repeated adjudications of the supreiue court, and is us'follows: ■ ■ ■ . - �" This court cannot entertain jurisdiclion to set aside the jifdgment of a stiite court for mere irregularity, or in a Ciise where the proceeding is merely tautamount to the commOn-laW practice of moving to set aside a judginent for irregularity, or to a writ of errer, a bill of review, or an appeal; but it has jurisdictionof a bill to set aside a judgment for fniud, or upouithe grbund that it was rendered by a court having no jurisdiction." Gaines v. Fuentes, 92U. S. 10: .Ba;TOW V. ZfMwton, 99U. S. 80.. . . �That the reuloval of the case is liot prohibited by the doctrine -annouriced in these cases is clear for several reasons : ' �(i) The intervening petition charges fraud, and is, therefore, not in the nature of the bill chargiiig errer or irregularities metely. (2) It charges waut of juiisdietion, and that the proceedings complained of have been had with- ��� �