Z FBDBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �and as such was possessed of her money ; that he, with Eob- ert I. Chester and W. B. Chester, other defendants, executed a trust mortgage to sec vire a debt due the life association upon certain lands in Madison county, Tennessee, — another defendant, C. B. Wellford, being the trustee, with usual pow- ers of sale; that in 1859, l<iig-before 'this trust deed was exe- cuted, a certain part of this land had been levied on under an execution and EfqM> by th^ sheriff as the property of the defendant Eobert L Chester, and redeemed by the payment to the crediter of the plaintiff 's money, this being done by her guardian for the benefit of Kobert I. Chester, but with- out anyjegal obligation to do it; that this was done after the tiffiwi for redemption faad e^pit^di aiid, by contiraiCt of the par- ties, the purchaser executing a quitclaim to Kobert I. Chester; that, having now corne of age, she elects to follow her money into this land, and claims it as hers, a trust having resulted in her favor ; that, as to the other part of the land conveyed in the deed of trust; her guaWian has used other parts of her money in making p8,yments on the debt secured to the Life Association, whereby the amount has been reduced; that all the parties, including the corporation, had knowledge of the facts and all her equities, and participated in the wrongful conversion of her f unds by her guardian ; and as to the land not included in her claim under the redemption contract she claims a right to be substituted to the company's security and priority of satisfaction. The bill prays for relief acoording t.o these alleged facts, and, on an allegation that the corpora- tion is insolvent and non-resident, prays an attachment and injunction. The attachment was refused, but the trustee was enjoined from selling. The bill alleges that the Chesters are in possession of the land. Eelfe appeared in the state court, was allowed to become a party, and immediately nled his petition and bond tp remove the cause to this court, and the plaintiff now moves to remand for want of j urisdiction. The petition for rerrtoyal alleges that the matters in oontroversy are those in which the plaintiff and the petitioning defendaiit "are solely interested," and that they "are wholly between the said plaintiff on the one side and your petitioners on the ��� �
