Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/16

 i. FED&BA.L BEPOBTEB. �being necessary only to convey title to whomsoever the court shpuld decree it. That judgment I consider has been fully sus- tained by the supreme court in Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 677, &nd Life Association, etc. v. Rundle, 12 Cent. Law J. 130; S. C. 13 Chi. Leg. News, 185. (See 102 U. S. when issued.) But this case is so different that the distinction between the two must be obvions. They are not the same controversy at all. Here the deed of truot is not attacked for fraud, — at least, not the same fraud upon the Chesters, who gave it, as that mentioned in that bill ; nor is the settlement growing out of it between them and the company attacked, and the plain- tiff in this case seeks no relief on aeeount of any of the alle- gations of fraud contained in that bill. She, as to one part of the land, indeed, seeks to maintain the trust deed as a secu- rity for the money paid by her guardian on the notes secured by it with knowledge of the company, and to that extent her interest is the same as that of the company or Eelfe, its assignee. And, as to the other portion of the land, she daims a paramount title to that of the insurance company and its mortgagor, but does not at all question the validity of the deed oif trust as between the company and the other defend- ants. Briefly, her bill may be described as one to establish a fraudulent conspiracy, throttgh whieh she claims a result- ing trust in land in possession of a mortgagor to which she has properly made the mortgagee, whom she charges with notice and participation in the fraud, a defendant. Such controversy as she has Ivith the mortgagee is inseparable from that she has with the mortgagor, and they are eaeh indispensable parties to a bill like this, in any possible view that may betaken of the case. Hill, Tr. (3d Am. Ed.) 246; Perry, Tr. § 877; 1 Daniell, Ch. Pr. (5th Am. Ed.) 246, et seq.,- Story, Eq. PI. §§ 209, 213; Burt v. Dennet, 2 Bro. Ch, 225; iMnd v. Blanchard, 4 Hare, 9, at pp. 29-30; Bailey v. Inglee, 2 Paige, 278; Findlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet. 241, 246; Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wh. 193; Smith v. Shane, 1 McL. 22; HoMe v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173; Gayhrds v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81. �The only possible theory upon which this court can ac- quire jurisdiction over such a case is that suggested by Mr. ��� �