Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/597

 BUCKMAN V. RUCKMAN. 589 �from bis father or Euckman, that the objeot in taking the mortgage in his name was to avoid any liability to attach- ment of the debt by one Burgholtz, a judgment creditor of Euckman ; that at the request of Euckman he executed and delivered to him, about the same time, an assignment of the bond and mortgage to the complainant; that Euck- man held them until February or March, 1879, when he pro- posed to return to him the assignment of said bond and mortgage, cancelled and destroyed, and to redeliver to him the bond and mortgage, in consideration that he (Boylan) should give to him his promissory notes for the said sum of $5,000, bearing even date -with the bond and mortgage, and payable in one year; that, regarding the bond and mort- gage as a good investment, he accopted the offer, delivered his notes in good faith, and took the papers in his possession as his own property, and that he still holda the same. �It thus appears that the subject-matter of the suit is the ownership of the bond and mortgage, which is claimed by the complainant on the one hand, and by Boylan on the other. They are citizens of different states. The pleadings reveal a coutroversy in the suit "wholly between them," and whioh can be "fuUy determined as between them," and in which the petitioner Boylan "has an actual interest." �These facts bring it within the second clause of the second section of the act of 1875, unless it ceases to be a suit between citizens of different states, because there happens to be other defendants in the cause, one of whom is a citizen of the same state with the complainant. �This question may still be regarded as an open one, although the tendency of judicial opinion is in favor of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in such a case. The congress, in its last legislation on the subject, adopted, sub- stantially, the language of the eleventh section of the third article of the constitution, and thus seemed to design to confer upon the circuit court ail the jurisdiction which the constitution warranted. I had occasion to examine the question with some care, in a recent case, and I came to the conclusion that Tehen the real controversy in a suit was ��� �