94 OCTOBER TEP?, 1907. 8yllabua ?09 U. 8. in equity the findings will not be disturbed by this court,' unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. To? v. Moore, 173 U.S. 17; Brainard v.. Buck, 184 U.S. 99; Shappirio v. Goldberg, 192 U.S. 232. An examination of the voluminous testimony shows that it. tended to sustain' the findings, and that, to say the least, there is no ground for saying that the conclusions drawn from the evidence were clearly erroneous. Accepting as true the facts found, we think the discretion of the court was wisely exercised in refusing an .injunction and remitting the appellants to a court of law to recover such dam- age as they might there prove that they had sustained. The reasol? for this conclusion are tersely stated in the opinion of them.? J?ent affirmed. VENNER v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Where the question of jurisdiction is certified to this court under i 5 of the judiciary act of 1891, nothing but that question can be considered here. In this case the question is considered both as to parties and subject-mat- A qause is removable to the Circu/t Court ff it is one of winch the court is given juried/ction. While the court, in determining whether diverse citizenship exists, may disregard the pleader's arrangcment of parties and align them according to actual interest, if ihe plaintiff's controversy is actually with all the parties named as defendants, all of whom are necessary parties, none of them can for jurisdictional purposes be regarded otherwise than as de- fendants; and so he/d, in an action against a corporation and others by one of the stockholders, that where the complaint alleges joint fraudulent conduct on the part of the corporation and the other defendants with whom it jointly resists that charge, the corporation cam?ot be reMigned as a par?y plaintiff even if it might be to its fman?,ial interest to have the plaintiff prevail. Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U.S. 579.
�
