SHELDON V. KEOKUK N. L. P. CO. TJQ �a common state citizenship existing between the complain- ants and a part only of the defendants, provided. the other defendants were citizens of the proper state, -would not, under the constitution, oust the court of jurisdiction. �Here is an actual, substantial eontroversy existing between the plaintiSs, residents of Wisconsin, and the Keokuk North- ern Line Packet Company, a citizen of Missouri, upon the determination of which depends title to a large amount of property, consisting of .steamboats, barges, etc., turned over by the judgment debtor to the said defendant. Perhaps it might be said to be the main eontroversy in the case ; but I do not choose to rest the decision on that ground. If Peyton S. Davidson -were a merely nominal party, the suit could be removed under the law as it has existed from the foundation of the government. But he is not. He is a proper party, with an actual interest in the eontroversy, so far as it relates to the alleged fraudulent transfer of the real estate to him in April, 1873. But, though a proper party, he is, in my judg- ment, not a necessary party, so far as relates to the alleged fraudulent transfer of the steamboats and other personal prop- erty to the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company. �That transfer was made at a different time, to a different party, and upon a distinct and different consideration, and has no necessary connection with the transfer of the lots of land to Davidson, except that the transfer was made by the same judgment debtor. The suit as to Davidson might be discontinued and his name struck from the record, and the eontroversy which the plaintiffs would still have with the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company could be fully deter- mined, and ail the rights of the parties interested be settled, without Davidson 's presence. �Under the law goveming creditors' bills, any person may be made a defendant who is a party to any distinct, fraudu- lent conveyance, or has an interest in any property so fraud- "ulently conveyed by the debtor, if he be privy to the fraud. But he is not a necessary party to other controversies in the same suit ! relating to other and distinct fraudulent transfera to other persons. So any person may be joined aa plaintiff ��� �
