Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/419

BHEOBD V. STROXHER. ���407 ���Liiere is no question of jurisdiction in ariy oi these cases, as far as oitizeusliip and the amount involved are concerned. �Tiie.flrst two causes are prooeedings by garnishment. The plain- tiffs in these cases obtained judgments against the defendants in the etate court, caused certain parties to be garnished, and having taken issue upon the answers of the garnishees, the plaintiff removed the issues thus. made for determination into this court. The original defendant and the garnishees now move to remand. �"In the third case the plaintiff, a citizen of Wisconsin, obtained a judgment in the state court against an lowa corporation, and having failed to obtain satisfaction of the judgment he seeks by this action to make the present defendants, who are stockholders in the corpora- tion; liable, in pursuance of ohapter 181, title 9, of the Code of lowa. The plainfcifi in the present action against the defendants, one of whoœ is a director and the other a etockholder in the cor^oi$ition, sets out his judgment and the return of execution nulla bona; charges the. defendants with certain alleged frailds to his injury within the provisions of the statute; and prays judgment for his damages. The plaintiff caused the proceedings against the stockholders tobe re- moved. into this court. The defendants move to remand tp the state court. . . . . - : �Whatisthe true principle applicable to this clasa of removal cases? .By what rule or criterion may we determine vyhejtheif or not a proceeding which is merely auxiliary tO the main judgment or decree may be transferred from the state to the federal court ? It is idle to say that a supplemental proceeding cannot be removed because it is an appendage or sequence of the original suit. This is, at best, but reasoning in a circle. It is as if one were to affirm. that a sup- plemental proceeding cannot be remb^ed, because it isa, supplemental proceeding. It is, in fact, substitiiting one form of words.for another form of words. We must, if. possible, find some other principle to guide our judgment in such cases. It seems to me that the true principle is this : Where the supplemental proceeding is in its char- aoter a mare mode of execution or of relief, inseparably connected with the original judgment or decree, ifc cannot be removed, notwith- standing the fact that some new controversy. or issue between the plaintiSiin the original action and a new party may arise out of the proce'editig. But where the supplemental pfooeediing is not merely a modeiOI «xecution or relief , but wiere it, in fact, involves an, inde- pendent «con-troversy with. some new and different .p.artyf it rflay be removed into the federal court; always, of course, .assuiping i that ��� �