Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/421

 BUFOBD V. BTBOTHEB. 409 �The other braucli of the rule, that there can be no removal where the Bupplemental proceeding is a mode of reiie/inseparably connected with the original judgment, is illustrated by the case of Ghapman v. Bargcr, 4 Dillon, 557. In this case it was held that the proceeding under the occupying claimant law, for the value of improvements after judgment in ejectment, cannot be removed to the federal court. In this class of cases the statute of lowa provides a mode of relief after judgment for the occupying claimant. Upon the filing of his petition the execution of the original judgment is to be suspended. The value of the improvements is to be ascertained, and also the value of the land aside from the improvements. The plaintiff in the main action may thereupon pay the appraised value of the improvements and take the property. If the plaintiff fail to do this after a reasonable time to be fixed by the court, the defendant may take the property upon paying the value of the land aside from the improvements, etc. Now it is obvious that this relief is inseparably connected with the judg- ment in the main action. A court not having the judgment in the main action under its control, could not give to the parties the full measure of relief provided by the statute ; for supposing the owner of the land should pay for the improvements, he would be entitled to an execution to put him in possession of the property, and a writ of possession could issue only upon the judgment in ejectment. �It is obvious, therefore, that the motion to remand the first two cases above named must be sustained. �As to the third case, it stands upon wholly different ground. The proceeding in this case is not in any sense a mode of execution or relief aiter judgment. It does not aim to reach assets of the corpo- ration in the hands of a stockholder or director. It seeks no relief whieh is inseparably connected with the judgment against the corpo- ration. The plaintiff in his petition charges the defendants, as stock- holders and directors of the corporation, with certain fraudulent acts and representations within the terms of the lOTlst section of the Code of lowa, and prays judgment for damages as provided for in that section. The section is as follows : �"Intentional fraud, in failing to comply substantially with the articles of incorporation, or in deceiving the public or individuals in relation to their means or their liabilities, shall subject those guilty thereof to fine and impris- onment, or both, at the discretion of the court. Any person who has sus- tained injviry from such fraud may recover damages therefor against those participatir.g in such fraud." ��� �