tOND V. SIBLEY. 135 �parties, but are merely nominal' parties. No personal de- mand is made against any one oi them, and it is only in hip relation to the company, and in the officiai position that he occupies towards the company, that any one of them is made a party. This beirjg so, if any one of them were to cease tb be a director, the termination of his officiai relation woula make the relief asked, and the in junction,. futile as to him. The entire real cdntroversy in the suit, as respects the At- lanta Company, so far as it is shown by the prayer of the complaint and the petition, and which are the only guide this court can now have on that subject, is betUFeeu the plain- tiffs on the one side and the corporate body on the othex, The plaintiffs cannot, by joining as nonainal defendants with Ihe Atlanta Company directors qf it who are citizens of the same states with the plaintiffs, deprive that corporation of any right which it would otherwise have in respect to remov- ing the cause into this court. Hatch v. Chicago, etc., B. Co, 6 Blatchf. 105, 114; Wormley v, Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 451 ; Carneai v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181, 188; Aroma y. Auditor, 2 Fed. Eep. 33; Arapahoe Co. v. Kansas Pacific U. Co.4cI>i\\on^ ^11; Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577. �The individual defendants must, therefore, be considered as not parties to the controversy set forth in the complaint between the plaintiffs and the two corporations. There is Buch a controversy. Not only does such a controversy ap- pear by the complaint, but the petition for removal alleges that there is such a controversy, and that it is between, and wholly between, the plaintiffs on the one side and the two corporations on the other. The petition does not allege that there is any controversy which is wholly between the plain- tiffs on one side and the Atlanta corporation on the other. The controversy referred to is one which can be fully deter- mined, as between the plaintiffs on the one side and the two cor- porations on the other, with those parties only as parties to the suit, and without the presence of the individual defend- ants as parties. But such controversy cannot be fully deter- mined, as regards either corporation, without the presence of ��� �
