TOWNSHIP OB' AEOMA ». A.UDITOB PUBLIO AOOOUNTB. 35 �state and county officers, who are made parties defendant, are necessary parties, and such officers are citizens of this state, invoking the well known rule that ail the parties to tha controversy fnust be entitled to remove the cause, or a re- moval should not be allowed. �It is manifest, from the allegations in this bill, that the sole controversy in this case is as to the validity of these bonds, and this is and can be only a controversy betweeu complainant and the holders of the bonds. �If the bonds are a valid obligation of the town, the law prescribes the duty of the state and county officers in the matter of certifying, levying, coUecting, and paying over a sufficient tax to pay the bonds, or- the interest on them, as they mature. These officers have really nothing to do with this controversy further than to levy, collect and disburse the taxes required to pay the bonds, so that the controversy in- augurated by this bill is solely between the town and the bond holders. �If complainant had not made the holders of these bonds parties to his bill, there is no doubt that the court would have allowed them to make themselves parties on their own motion, and defend, and the contest would have been and can be only as to whether these bonds are a valid indebtedness against complainant, �True, the frame of complainant's bill makes it necessary to make these state and county officers parties, but they are indifferent as to the resuit. The struggle interests only the town and these bond holders. �I therefore think the case was rightfuUy removed. �Motion to remand overruled. ����
