IS FEDEBAIi BBPOBTEB. �to defeat the claim of the plaintifiF, on the ground that she makes out no title to the money. The bank is thus a proper and a necessary party, and, being a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff, the case is not a removable one, under sec- tion 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 U. S. St. at Large, 470,) although the plaintiff and Lewis H. Bailey are citizens of different states. �There is not in this case, as it now stands, any controversy between citizens of different states to which a defendant, citi- zen of the same state with the plaintiff, is not a necessary party, so as to make a case within the first subdivision of section 2 of the act of 1876 ,* nor any controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fuUy determined as between them without the presence of a defendant citizen of the same state with the plaintiff actually interested in such controversy, so as to make a case within the second subdivision of section 2 of the act of 1875. No case is cited where a removal has been allowed under section 2, under circumstances such as those which exist in the pres- ent case; �In WehlY. Wold, in this court, (December 10, 1879,) and in Healy v. Prevost, 8 Eeporter, 103, the original debtor had ceased to be a party, the money was in court, and the two remaining parties were of diverse citizenship. �The motion to remand the cause is granted, with costs. ���The Chicago, St. Louis & New Orl eans Eaileoad Compant V. Macomb and others. �(Circuit Cowt, 8. D. UTew York. April 27, 1880.; �Biu, FOB D18COTBKT — Speciai, Demubrer. — A special demnrrer to part of a blll must point out with certainty the part demurred to. �Same— Ikteheogatoribs. — Interrogatories are not to be framed and lim- ited upon the theory that everything stated in the bill ia precisely and In every detail true. ����
