HANOTE& FIBE INS. CO. V. EEOOH. 765 �Black & Co. clairtt'Under an assignment made by Estes to them, June 20, 1871; that the BlossomB claim under an attachment against Estes, made October 30, 1869; that Keogh claims under an attachment against Estes made February 9, 1878; that Williams, Black & Co. claim that the Blossoms and Keogh have no valid claims under their attachment ; that the Blossoms claim priority to Williams, Black & Co., and to Keogh; that Keogh claims that the assignment to Williams, Black & Co. is void as to him, and that his attachment is superior in right to that of the Blos- soms ; and that Estes sets up in his answer that the attach- ments of the Blossoms and of Keogh have become invalidated and are of no force, and that the assignment to Williams, Black & Co. is valid. It is apparent that Keogh has no status to attack either the attachment of the Blossoms or the assignment to Williams, Black & Co., unless he has a valid attachment against Estes, and that Estes is entitled to be heard on that question, under the pleadings, and is a necessary party to that controversy. Claimiiig, as Estes does in his answer, that the interest he assigned to Williams, Black & Co. shall go towards paying his debt to them, and that that resuit cannot be prevented by the prior attachment of the Blossoms, because of its invalidity, he is clearly inter- ested in maintaining, as against Keogh, and has a right to do so, under his answer and the other pleadings, the contrary of what Keogh asserts. He was a necessary party to any controversy between Keogh and the Blossoms, and to any controversy between Keogh and' Williams, Black & Co, Moreover, Keogh cannot reach the fund by successfully at- tacking the attachment of the Blossoms, without also suc- cessfully attacking the assignment to Williams, Black & Co. ; and Estes is, on his answer and its allegations, a necessary party to any attack on that assignment, interested in having it maintained to pay^'^'o tanto his debt to them. So Estes, the Blossoms, and Williams, Black & Co., on the one side, and Keogh on the other, are necessary parties to the claim Keogh makes on the fund; and Estes and Keogh, being both of them citizens of North Carolina, the case was not remov- ��� �
