Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/418

 406 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �BCPOED & Co. V. StBOTHBII & CONKLIN, �John Dere & Co. ». Sthother & E. Conklin. �BoYD, Adm'r, etc., v. Bradish and another. �(Circuit Court, D. lowa. November ierm, 1881. ) �1. Removal op Cause afteb Judgmbnt. �Where a supplemental proceeding is a mere mode of execution or relief inseparably conn'ected with the original judgment or decree, it cannot be re- moved, although some new controveray or issue between piaintiff in the original action and a nevr party may arise out of the proceeding. But where such pro- ceeding is not a mere mode of execution or relief, but involves an independent controversy with a new or diiierent party, it may be removed into the federal court. �2. Same — Cause, whbn Remandkd. �Where the plaintiff in a suit in a state court obtained judgment agajnst thc defendant, garnished certain parties, and, after taliing issue upon the answer of the garnishees, removed the issues thus made to the circuit court of the United Btatcs, hdd,' on motion by the original defendant and the garnishees to remand the c^use, that the motion he maintained, on the ground that the pro- ceedings are a mere mode oi execution or relief, inseparalily connected with the original judgment. �3. SamB— Motion to Remand, when Dbnibd. �In an action in the state court against a corporation, incorporated tmder the laws of the state of lowa, the plaintiff obtained judgment, and, ui^ou a return of the execution unsatisfied, he proceeded against certain stocliholders in the corporation under the provisions of chapter 181, title 9, of the state court, and removed these proceedings into the circuit court of the United States. Hdd, on motion to romand, that the. motion be denied, on the ground th«t such pro- ceedings involve an independent controversy with new parties, against whom the plaintiff seelis to establisli a new liability. �Motion to Eemand. �Reed e Marsh and Willett de Willett, for the motion. �Martin, Murphy e Lynch and Broivn e Wellington, contra. �Love, D. J. The foregoing cases are now before us upon motions to remand the same to the state courts from which they were brought into this court. The motions to remand are all placed by counsel upon the same general grounds. It is insisted as to each of these cases that it is a proceeding supplemental to the original cause out of which it grew, and being a mere appendage to the judgment ren- dered in the original case it cannot be separated from the same and brought for adjudication here. These several motions may therefore be considered together. ��� �