SHuirwAT ». 0. & I. fe 00. 'S85 �take and pay the bonds; and upon the other, to tranefer the Btock and receive the bonds for the same. XJntil the sub- scription is made the contract is onexecuted^ and obligatory npon neither party." �See, also, Town of Concord v. Savings Bank, 92 U. S. 625. �Demurrer sustained. ���Shuhway and others v. CHioi.ao & Iowa B. Go. and othera. �(Cvreitit Gcmrt, 2f. D, lUinot». , 1880. ) �1. Kemotal— Wakt of Conteoteest. — In a controversy between a rail- road and its stockholders, as to the validity of certain shares of the railroad stock, the cause cannot be removed to the federal court upon the application of the holder of such stock, where there is no contro- versy as to its ownership. �Dbummond, C. J. This was a bill filed in the state court by several stockholders of the raihroad company for th,e pur- pose of obtaining a decree of the court declaring that certain shares of stock, issued by the president of the railroad com- pany to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eailroad Com- pany, were invalid. There was an answer put in by the defendants, and, after varions steps taken in the statô court, Charles E. Perkins, one of the officers of the Chicago, Bur- lington & Quincy Eailroad Company, and a citizen of Iowa, made application to have the cause removed to this court. The usual petition and bond were filed, and the record ia brought to the court and leave asked by the defendants to have the transcript of the record from the state court filed, and the cause entered upon the calendar, on the ground that it bas been properly removed from the state court to thia court. To this objection is made by the plaintiffs, they in- eisting that the cause is not of such a character as it can ba properly transferred to this court. ' �The controversy is as to the validity of 6,640 shares of stock of the Chicago & Iowa Eailroad Company. There seems to be no controversy as to the ownership of this stock, if valid, �y.4,no.5 — 25 ����
