OABBBTT V. BATLBft. 371 �the property. ra ascertamliig the acmal parties (o the con- trorersjr we must look at the substance and not at the mere f orm. The bill was filed by Mrs. Bnckman for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and in the suit there was involved a contro- versy with her husband as to the rights of ownership and possession of the original papers evidencing the existence of the mortgage. The petitioner was, doubtless, aetually inter- ested in that question, and so was the complainant. It was the principal controversy in the suit. The husband and wife were the real parties to it, and both are citizens and residents of the state of New York, �But, besidea this, admit it to be true that Samuel M. Hop- ping was a necessary party, what controversy arises in the proceedings which is wholly between him and the petitioner, and which can be f uUy determined as between them? Surely, not the controversy about the ownership and possession of the bonds and mortgages, because Mrs. Buckman bas an interest in that question, and was an indispensable party in a suit for its determination. �In short, I am unable to find in the petition or the plead* ings any facts which warrant the removal by the defendant Buckman, and the cause must be remanded to the court of chaucery of New Jersey, with costs. ���Gabsbtt and others ». Satles and olhers. �Saylbs and others v. Gabbbtt and othcro. �(CHreuit Court, D. Rhode lOand. March 1, ISBO.) �CoBrOBXTION— PeRSOJJAL LtABIMTT OF Stockholdies— BOHDS Seoubjbd �BT MoBTOAOB OB' CoBPORATB Propbbtt — ^The issue of negotiable bonds, secured by mortgage upon ail the property of a corporation, and ftllotted pro rata to the stockholders, does not relieve such stockholders from their personal liability, under the statutea of Bhode Island, to tha assignees of such bunds. ��� �
