Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/562

 554 FfiDEfiAL BEPOiiXEE. �This court might be of opinion that the defendants Mackey and Fair are entitled to a final decree upon the face of the hill, while the state court, having jurisdiction of the other , branch of the controversy, might determine that Flood and bis co-defendant were not entitled to a decree upon the same bill, and under the same circumstances. Or the position of the courts might be reversed. We cannot assume that the determinations of dififerent courts would neeessarily be the same. The very right to transfer at ail is based upon the idea that the resuit in the national court may be different from that in the state court. The same might be true upon a final hearing upon the evidence, but the effect would be the same in either event, whether determined on demurrer or final hearing. If Mackey and Fair should succeed in wholly de- feating the complainant in their branch of the case and of the controversy, either on demurrer or a hearing, and the com- plainant should succeeed, as to Flood and his co-defendant, then, under the views I have taken, Mackey and Fair would be immediately liable to be called upon to contribute, either on his Personal liability to complainant as a stockholder, or in a suit by the Pacific Wood, Lumber & Flume Company, or at the suit of his copartner or associate Flood, and the whole litigation have to be gone over again. The whole con- troversy would not be finally determined. If, on the other hand, Flood and his co-defendant should succeed in their defence, and Mackey and Fair be charged in their branch of the case, then they would be in a position to call upon Flood or the estate of O'Brien to contribute, and the same relitiga- tion would resuit. The truth is, as I view the case, whatever the ruling upon the case might be, the tvhole of the contro- versy cannot 'tie finally determined without the presence of ail the parties to the entire controversy. �As the case appears to me, nothing affeeting the question of jurisdiction would resuit from an argument of the demur- rer, however it might be determined, and a rehearing for that purpose would be futile. It is therefore denied. If the viewa expressed are sound, and they seem clearly so to my mind. ��� �