Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/192

 FOSS V. FIRST »AT. BK. OP OENVEB. 185 �Foss and others v. Thb First National Bank oï Denveb. �{Circuit Court, D. Colorado. , 1880.) �L JuRisDicTioN— Nation al Banks. — The federal courts have jurisdiction over ail suits by and against national banka, irrespective of the sub- ject-matter. �2. Samb — Same — Parties. — Joining merely nominal or personal parties haç no effect either to confer or exclude jurisdiction; but trustees, executorg, and the like are not formai parties, within the meaning of the rule, where in fact interested in the litigation. Accordingly, where two or three persons, claiming a certain fund which was in the custody of a national bauk, brought their bill in equity against the bank and a third claimant, and the bank exhibited its cross-bill,' pray- ing that the parties might interplead, this was held to confer jurisdic- tion, although but for such cross-bill the jurisdiction was doubted. �In Equity. Bill and cross-bill. Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. �L. C. RochveU and J. Q. Charles, for motion. �Wagner, Dyer e Emmons and W. S. Decker, opposing. �McCbaby, C. J. This controversy relates to a fund which, under a written agreement between Simeon H. Foss, Absalom V. Hunter, and Charles B. Bissell, was deposited to their joint credit with the First National Bank of Denver. The money can be drawn from the bank only upon the joint check of the said Foss, Hunter and Bissell, and a dispute having arisen between them as to their respective shares thereof, no joint check bas been signed. �On the eighth of January, 1879, defendant Bissell gave notice in writing to the bank that he claimed seven-twelfths of the fund, and that until his claim was adjusted be objected to the payment of any part of the fund to the other claim- ants. On the sixth of March folio wing the plaintiffs in the original bill, Foss and Hunter, served a written notice on the bank, claiming to own nine-twelfths of said fund, and declar- ing that said Bissell was entitled to three-twelfths only, and they demanded of the bank payment of eight-twelfths of the amount on deposit, leaving in the hands of the bank one- twelfth, as in dispute between them and BisseU. It also ap- ����