Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/378

 870 RDBBAL BBFOBTBB. �In determînîng the question of the jurîsdîotionof this ooart in the case we mnst look at the petition for removal, and the bill and answer filed, and ascertain whether such a oontro» versy is foiind as the act of oongress prescribes. �None such ia suggested in the petition. The removal is prayed for beoanse the controversy in the suit is between citi- zens of different states. But that is one of the grounds of removal stated in the firat clause of the section, in which the united action of ail the defendants or aU the plaintiffs is neeessary to make the petition operative. �I might rest the decision of the motion upon this, aud remand the cause, (Gold Wathing e Water Co. v. Keyes, 6 Otto, 201,) but as it was not adverted to in the argument, and another question was fuUy discussed, it will not be improper for me to give it some attention. �It -ffill be observed that Margaret Euckman, being a feme eovert, bas filed her bUl of «omplaint, by her next friend, Samuel M. Hopping, who is a citizen of the state' of New Jersey. It was insisted, on the hearing, that he thus beoame a neeessary party to the suit, and as the petitioner foi the removal was a citizen of New York, and the said Hopping a citizen of New Jersey, a oontroversy existed between oitizens of different states. �It was in accordance with the long established principles of equity practice for the complainant. a feme eovert, to flle the bill by her next friend. It may be doubted, however, in view of the legislation of New Jersey in regard to married women, whether such a course was neeessary. The eleventh section of the married women's act, (Eev. St. of N. J. 638,) provides that a married woman may maintain an action in her own name for the recovery of money, and ail property, real or personal, which by that act was declared to be her eeparate property. �But, whether a neeessary party or not, the next friend thus introduced bas no possible interest in any controversy involved in the suit. No decree could be made for him, whereby he wonld be personally benefited, or against him, exoept for oosts, if the real complainant failed to establish her daim to ��� �