764 FBDEBAIi BSPOBTEB. �In the case against Dub there is no doubt that he knevr the nature of Dans' businessi He was an old friend and an intimate acquaintance of the bankrupt. - He bought goods of the value of $2,200, when by his own testimony $600 to $700 would fully stock the small establishment connected with his hotel where he was selling these goods. �In the case againBt Kahn the evidence also is that he was an old friend and knew the nature of Dans' business. In 1867 he gave in his entire stock for taxes at $1,000, yet hia purchase from Dub at one transaction amounted to $1,926. His deniai that he knew that Dans was acting with intent to work a fraud on the bankrupt law amounts to nothing. He should have shown that he riiade inquiry, and that he became satisfied that Dans' purpose was not the purpose which the law deolared it, prima facie, to be. �The decree must, therefore, be against the defendants for the full amount of the value of the goods bought by them. �Eebki:ie, D. J., concurring. ���Hanovee Pire Ins. Co. v. Keogh and others. {Circuit Court, S. D. New York. Iilay 28, 1881.) �I. RBirovAL. �Where A., B. and C. on the one side, and D. on the other, are neccssary parties to the claim of D. on the fund in controverse, the case is not removable if A. and D. are citizens of the same atate, although the other two parties are citizens of another state. �Blatchfoed, C. J. The petition for removal alleges that there is no controversy between Estes and Keogh, and that the eontroversies to which Keogh is a party in the suit, or in which he is interested, are all between Keogh and citizens of New York, namely, Williams, Black & Co., and the Blos- soms. But, the pleadings having all been put in before the petition for removal was filed, the eontroversies, and the questions as to who are the real parties to them, must be judged of by those pleadings. They show that Williams, ��� �
