Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/15

 OHESTEB V. CHESTEIt. S �other, aud can be fully determined as belween them." It should be stated the petition is that of, the extinpt corpora- tion and Eelfe, the sjibstituted defendant. There is an alle- gation in the petition that the said Eobert I. Chester, Eqbert H. Chester, and W. B. Chester in fact proeured the said D. V. Chester to institute said suit and to file the said bill for the express purpose of defeating the right, title, and claim of petitioners, as sbown and set forth in the answer in said cause, and are now united with her, the said D. V. Chester, in the prosecution and maintenance of the said suit or bill for the purpose aforesaid." �C. G. Bond, for plaintiflF. �Wright, Folkes e Wright, for defendant. �Hammond, D. J". In the case of Chester v. Wellford, MSS. : February 22, 1879, in this court, there had been a bill filed in the state chancery court by Eobert I. Chester and his co-defendants of that name in this case against Wellford, the trustee, and the Life Association of America, attaeking the deed of trust mentioned in this case for fraud, or, in the event the deed should be sustained, for an account of dividends and profits realized by the company in its business of life Insur- ance. As appears by the answer of Eelfe in this case, it appeared by the bill in that caae that these Chesters took out policies of life insurance and borrowed money of the company, executing this deed of trust to secure the deferred premium notes and the loan notes. There was subsequently a settle- ment, also attacked for fraud, by which the policies were cancelled, leaving the loan notes, or certain portions of them, unpaid; and Wellford, the trustee, was proceeding under bis powers to sell the land until arrested by injunction in that case. It was removed, as this case is sought to be, to this court, and a motion made to remand, beeause Wellford was a citizen of Tennessee, and a defendant along with the insur- ance company. That motion I overruled, and maintained our jurisdiction, distinguishing theqase from that of Gardiner V. Brown, 21 Wall. 36, on the ground that the trustee in a court of equity was, as the case was there presented, on3y aformal party, and, at most, had no interest in the controversy, ��� �