Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U.S. 56 (1894)
U.S. Supreme CourtWilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U.S. 56 (1894)
ft:Wilson v. Oswego Township
Argued and submitted December 20, 1893
Decided January 3, 1894
151 U.S. 56
A township in Kansas delivered twenty-two of its bonds to a railroad company to aid in the construction of the company's road. The company contracted with B. to construct the road, and to receive these bonds in part payment. The bonds were delivered during the progress of the work to B., and to M., a nonresident of Missouri, as trustee, jointly, and were by them deposited in a Missouri savings institution in St. Louis to remain there until the completion of the work, and then to be delivered to B. Upon the demand of himself and M., B., claiming that he had performed all the work under his contract, demanded the bonds. The association refused to deliver them except upon the joint order of B. and M. B. brought suit in St. Louis to recover them, making the association and the company defendants and serving process upon them, and making M. a defendant and serving upon him by publication. The township on its own motion intervened and was made party defendant. The savings association, M., and the township each answered separately. The railroad company was not served with process and made no answer. B. and the township then petitioned for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States, setting forth that they were citizens of Kansas, that the plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri, and that the savings association had no interest in the result of the controversy. The prayer of the petition was granted, the cause was removed, and it proceeded to judgment in the Circuit Court.
(1) That the savings association was a necessary and indispensable party to the relief sought for, and as that defendant was a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff there was no right of removal on the ground that it was a formal, unnecessary, or nominal party.
(2) That the removal could not be sustained on the ground that the controversy was a separable controversy between the plaintiff and the parties applying for and securing the removal.
The case is stated in the opinion.