Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/762

 150. FEDSptAL BEFORIEB. �go on.' What we hold now is that the BoKcitor has no authority to institute and prosecute soits without the sanc- tion of the board, and that such sanction does not appear in these cases. The motion to dismiss will be sustained, but sbould the board of directors hereafter order that a motion to re-instate the cases bemade, and that the suits be prose- cuted to judgment, the court will order their re-instatement. Love, D. J., concurs. ���Nat. Bank op Lyndon v. WEiii-s Eiveb Manuf'g Co. and �others. �(Circuit Court, D. Vermont. May 27, 1881.) �1. Rbmoval — Necessart PAETri;&— Officers op Cohpobatioii. �The offlcers cf h corporation are not such necewary parties to a suit involving the title to lands, alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by the corporation, as to preyent a rfimovai nnder the act �Of Marcha, 1875. �In Equity. Motion to remand- �Le»Zie (^ iio^er*, for plaintiff. �JE?. Pr.Smt^A, for defendants. �WnEBLEB, D. J. This suit was commenced in Caledonia county couit of chancery. The plaintiff and the defendant Fesaenden are citizens of Vermont; all the other defendants areoija^iens of other states. The suit is brought to setaside a levy of exeejition in favor of Gilbert A. Tapley against the Wells Eiver Manufacturing Company, and a conveyance from him to Walter A. Tapley, alleged to be fraudulent and void as te) creditora of that Company, of its lands, afterwards attachi6|d and, leyied upon by the plaintiff to eollect adebt of the, Company: existing at the time of the former levy, and to confirm the title of the plaintiff to the lands, which are in, possession of the defendant Fessenden as an offieer of the eorupanyj and the defendants Eichardson and Potter, under the Tapleys, The suit was, removedinto this court on the petition of the defendants, who are citizens of other states. ��� �