BUEKE r. FLOOD. 553 �utes, in order to enable couneel to present another point not suggested or argued on the first hearing, and counsel hava been heard on this petition. �The point whieh counsel desire to present is that the facts alleged in the bill do not present any ground for relief, and that upon the face of the bill there must be a final decree for the defendants Mackey and Fair, and this being so, they claim that a final dqcree should be made on the face of the bill itself, and that such decree would be a final determination of the controversy, as to them, and the case should be retained to be.disposed of on that ground. �Whether the bill states a good cause of action bas not been argued; a rehearing being asked in order that it may be argued ifor the purpose of determining the jurisdictional ques- tion, and I shall therefore not express any opinion as to its sufficiency. But, assuming for the purposes of the petition for rehearing, that the court would hold, upon argument, the bill to be insufficient, and that there must be a decree for Mackey and Fair on that ground, the objections pointed out in deciding the other points already considered and deter- mined would not be obviated. It would only be a determina- tion of that branch of the particular action. It would not finally determine tha rights of Mackey and Fair in the other hranch of the action still pending against Flood and the Pacific Wood, Lumber & Flume Company. It would not finally determine their rights in the wlwU controversy. The effect of a determination of the branch of the case against Mackey and Fair in their favor, upon demarrer to the bill, would be no greater than if determined in their favor after a final hearing on the evidence. Upon a removal, as to Mackey and Fair only, under the act of 1866, the other ])ranch of the same controversy, as against Flood and the Pacific Wood, Lumber & Flume Company, would remain in the state court. Owing to differences of views, differences of proofs, or differ- ence in the course of proceeding, different results may be reached in the different branches of the controversy pending in the state and national courts, and thereby the whole con- troversy, as we bave seen, would not be finally determined. ��� �
