1. After complainant has brought the defendant foreign corporation into court by service of a writ of sequestration on it, which can only issue in a suit "commenced" in this court, and of an order to show cause calling for an answer under penalty of having a temporary restraint issue against it, it would be inequitable to permit complainant to defeat defendant's petition to remove the suit against him to the United States district court on the ground of being a citizen of a foreign state, by saying he has not yet brought suit against the defendant.
2. Defendant claims the right to have this suit removed (as to it) to the federal court on the ground that the complainant has a separable controversy with said defendant to which the other defendants are not indispensable parties. Complainant seeks an accounting from all defendants for their dealings with the assets of the B. Company and to hold them liable for the total amount taken from the company. The bill charges that the corporate defendant was organized as a blind to hide illegal transactions in which the individual defendants took part and that the individual defendants are officers and directors of the dummy corporation. Held, there is but one controversy involved in this suit; all defendants — individual and corporate — are interested in the decree, and in order that the liability of each may be fixed, it is necessary that they all be brought into court to defend not only against the complainant but as against each other. Complainant seeks complete relief in this single suit by a single decree, and all the defendants must be present. Petition for removal denied.
PER CURIAM.
The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion filed in the court of chancery by Vice-Chancellor Fielder.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.