412 FEDEEAL KEPORTEB. �plea must fail under the rules laid down in numerous adjudicated cases. �In the case of De Laveaga v. Williams, reporfced in 5 Sawy. 573, Mr. Justice Field said : �" There is no doubt that the sole object of the deed to the eompliiinant was to give this court jurisdiction, and that the grantor has borne, and still bears, the expanses of the suit. But neither of these facts renders the deed inopera- tive to transfer the title. The defendants are not in a position to question the right of the grantor to give away the property if he chooses to do so. And the court will not, at the suggestion of a stranger to the title. inquire into the motives which induced the grantor to part with liis iuterest. It is suificient that the instrument executed is valid in law, and that the grantee is of the class entitled under the laws of congress to proceed in the federal courts for the protection of his rights. It is only when the conveyance is executed to give the court jurisdiction, and isaccompaiiied with an agieeiaent toretransfer the property at the request of the grantor upoti the termination of the litiga- tion, that the proceeding will be treated as a fraud on the court." See, also, Briggs v. French, 2 Sumn. 256; Smith v. Kernoolian, 7 How, 215; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 288. �Counsel, by brief, attempt to raise the question that Grobel & Co., being themselves the pledgees of the notes against defendant, had no right to repledge them to plaintiff. To this it may be answered : (1) That is no issue no^ in the case ; (2) the defendant can raise no such issue, it being no concern of his; (3) that so far as it was in this case it haa been settled by the ruling on the demurrers lately decided. �The complainant must have judgment on this plea to the jurisdic- tion. And as the balance of the defendant's petition or cross-bill has been held bad on demurrer, there is nothing left in the case tb sustain the outstanding injunction to restrain the sale originally ordered in the premises. Judgment may therefore be also entered dissolving the injunction heretofore issued in this case, with eosts, and reserving to complainant his right to proceed on the injunction bond for ali dam- age incurred by reason of said injunction. �Let a decree in accordance herewith be entered. �ifoTE. A honaflde conveyance of property in controversy for the express purpose of conferring jurisdiction, is no ground for remanding a cause to the state court, {Hoyt v. Wright, 4 Ped. Eep. 168;) but a defendant can not ac- quire the right to a removal by the purchase of the interests of his co-defend- ants. Temple v. Smith, 4 Ted. Eep. 392. — [Ed. ��� �
