goon.:' What we hold now is that the solicitor has no &uthorjty to institute and prosecute suits without the sanction of the board,. and that such sanction does not appear in these c.ases. The motion to dismiss will be sustained, but should the board of directors hereafter order that a motion to re-instate the cases be made,,· and that the suits be prosecuted to judgment, the court will order their re-instatement. LOVE, D. J., concurs.
NAT. BANK
OF
LYNDON ",'
V.
WELLS RIVER MANUF'G Co. and others. May 27, 1881.)
(Cireuit (Jourt, D. Vrrmont.
1.
REMOVAL-NECESSARY PARTI'E!!--'OWICERS OF CORPORATIllN.
The officers of a corporation are not such neeellllary parties to a suit involving the t.itle to landll, alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by the corporation, as to prevent a rAmovaJ under the act M:March 3, 1875.
In Eqnity. Motioll to reman4. Leslie w Rogers, for plainti;ff. E. W.:Smitk, for defendant.s. WREl'J:LER, D. J. This Buitwas commenced in Caledonia countycoul1t, ofchaDcery. Tlle plaintiff and. the defendant Fesaenden, are citizens of Vermont; all the other defendants are olother states. The suit is brought to set aside a levy of e:x:ecutipn in favorof Gilbert A. Tapley against the Wells ;River Manufa.cto,ring Company, and a conveyance from hi:m to Walter A. Tapley, alleged to. be fraudulent and void as,W creditors .of that company, of Hs lands, afterwards and. le-yied upon by the plaintiff to collect a,debt of the,company. existing at the time oithe former levy, and to c.onfirm.the title of the plaintiff ,to the lands, which are in, possession of the qefendant Fessenden. as an officer of the company; and thedefendfl,nts Richardson and Potter, under the Tapleys, The suit into this court 00. petition ()f defendants, who are Citizens of other states,
PLANT V. GUNK. ' ,
The plaintiff has moved to remand it, and it has been Qeard opon this m o t i o n . ' , ' The principle controversy relates to the title to the land, to which Fessenden is not alleged to makeanycllLim. As the fraud of the corporation is set up to defeat the title acquired from it, the corporation is a proper, if not a necessary, party to the bill; and, where a corporation is a party, under such circumstances its officers are proper parties in order to obtain discovery from them,but they are not necessary parties. Here, in this suit,. is. this controversy about the title to this land, upon one side of which is a <:itizen of Vermont, and on the other citizens of others states, which can be fully determined as between them without the presence of the other parties. Such a suit is removable by any of the defendants actuallyinterested in such controversy under the act of March 8, 1875. This has lately been determined by the supreme court of the United States. Barney v. Latham, Chic. Leg. News, May 21, 1881. Motion overruled. , The plaintiif has leave to amend the bill according t08uggestions therein, as moved for on the hearing of the motion. at any time before July rule-day, without prejudice to the injunction and receivership now in force: and the defendants have )eave to ,answer:the bill as it may'bo amended, at any time before August rule-day.
PLANT
and others v. Gun and others. .'
(Oireuie Oourl, 8. D. Georgia, W. D. May 13, 1881.' JUDGMENTS-NoTlCE-rOoDB OJ'
GEORGIA, +267. . . The object of the book of complete record,.whlch the of each superior court in GeorKia is required to keep by paragraph 6, t 267, of the Code of Georgia, for" the record of all the proceedings in all civil cases; within six months after the tinal detet'Jhinatibn thereof," is not to give notice of liens by judgment. Thefailu're of' the clerk to keep such book, or to record a. judgment thereilJ:, dpes not affect the constructive notice cOD,veyed by a judgment regUlarly entered, as required by 'law, on the declaration' in the case, whl{re 'the· .execution issued thereon is regularly docketed for the fuQaniount: of'