Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/505

 490 FEDERAL REPORTER. �upon which the judgment was rendered was defective, in that it did not set forth the facts out of which the indebtedness evidenced by the notes arose ; and, as authority for the proposition that this is a fatal defect, we are cited to the case of Chappel v. Chappel, 12 N. Y. 215. �On the other hand, it is insisted that the statement and affidavits upon which the judgment was confessed were in all respects such as the statute requires. I do not go into the question because I am clearly of the opinion that it is one over which this court has no jurisdiotion. The federal courts will not entertain jarisdiction to set aside the judgment of a state court for mere irregularity, or in a case ■where the proceeding is merely tantamount to the common-law prac- tice of moving to set aside a judgment for irregularity, or to a writ of error, a bill of review, or an appeal. The proceedings in all such cases are to be regarded as supplementary to and connected with the Orig- inal suit, and must be instituted in the same court with the original proceeding. This court can only take jurisdiction where the bill is in its nature a separate, in dependent, and original suit. Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10; Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80. �6. I corne now to a question of considerable importance in its application to this and other cases. Can this court decree a distri- bution of the f und now in the hands of the sheriff of Jackson county, Missouri, as proceeds of the sale of th<e property attached in the sev- eral attachment suits instituted by the complainants herein, in the state court, against Schwed & Newhouse. It will be observed that these attachment proceedings were instituted and.conducted to judg- ment in the state court, and that the sale under which the sherifi holds the money in question was made in the attachment suits by order of that court. It is only the bill in chancery instituted in the state court to enjoin the Heller judgment, and set it aside, that has been removed to this court. True, the bill contains a prayer for the payment of the complainant's judgments out of said fund, but the main purpose of the suit, and the feature of it which euables thia court to take jurisdiction, was the prayer for a decree setting aside the judgment of Heller for fraud. �It is well settled that the removal of the cause to this court brought with it the subject-matter of the controversy, so as to enable the court, by final decree, to dispose of the same. What was the subject-mat- ter of this suit, which, by the removal, was brought within our control? Clearly, it was the judgnxent and execution in the case of Heller against Schwed & Newhouse, and not the money in the hands of the eheriff, received by him in the course of proceedings in the attach- ��� �