Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/899

 GREEIIWALT V. TUOKBR. 887 �the View, of, giving juiisilictioti to any of the courts of the United States, and thereby to harass the occupants thereof, shall be and the same convey- ance is hereby declared inoperative," etc. �Of course, no state statute can deprive a citizen of any of his rights under the federal constitution and laws, and if the Missouri statute just quoted were the only authority on the question before this court, no special weight could be given thereto where real controversies ex- ist between a citizen of Missouri and a citizen of another state. The statute in question, so far as quoted above, merely announces a rec- ognized rule in the federal courts, and proceeds to affix consequences for the attempted fraud. With those consequences this court bas in iihis case nothing to do. The sole question is whether the transfer by a blank deed, mala fide, without consideration, of the title to a parce! of land in Missouri, for the purpose of bringing suit in this <3onrt, will enable such a grantee to maintain an action of ejectment here? If such be permissible, then, despite constitutional and legal provisions and restrictions, nearly every controversy can, through fraudulent schemes, be absorbed in the federal vortex, to the great damage and possible ruin of the adverse party through extraordinary «osts and expenses. A citizen of Missouri, resident on the lowa bor- der, or resident on the Arkansas border, the title to whose land his neighbor disputes, can have the cause tried in his county, •where the witnesses reside and vrhere the locus in quo is known, ac- cording to the state laws, which are controllable in every forum. Why, then, should he be dragged far away from his home to contest his rights at great expense in another forum, instead of having the con- troversy judicially determined where it can be properly and inex- pensively investigated ? �In the case now under consideration this court rules that the mo- tion for a new trial should be granted, for the following reasons : �(1) That since the trial new testimony has been discovered, which by due diligence could not have been previously obtained. �(2) That the prima faoie sliowing of the defendants is to the effeet that a fraud on the jurisdiction of this court has been practiced. No court with jealous regard to its duties will permit itself to be an instrument of fraud. �If the judgment in this case were sought to be impeached by sum- mary or plenary proceedings, the court would be bound to take cog- nizance thereof. It is not necessary in all cases to bringa bili in equity to have a judgment set aside by fraud, but where the injured party proceeds promptly, as bya motion for a new trial or otherwise, the court will entertain the question, granting to the respective par- ��� �