SCHUELENBUEO V. MARTIN. 7e7 �cause upon the attachment issue should have been made, and should have shown affirmatively that the amount in value in that controversy was more than |500. There is, in fact, no application for the removal of the case, as it stands, upon the plea in abatement. The petition is for the removal of the original or main cause, which is not removable because it does not involve a controversy. �The motion to remand is sustained. �Krekel, D. J., concurs. �Note. — See Buckman v. Ruchman, 1 Fed. Rbp. 587. ���ScHUELENBURG & BoECKLEB V. Martin and othors. (Circuit Cowt, D. Kansas. June 14, 1880.) �MoRTGAGE — Future Advancbs. — A mortgage given to secure future �I advances, at a time when no indebtedness existed, is valid. �Dbbtob and Cebditoiî — Application of Monby.— Where money bas been received in part payment of a running account, and no gpeciac application has been made of the same, a cbancellor can, in his discre- tion, apply guch money to that portion of the account which remaing unsecured, without regard to the order of time in which the indebted- ness for the several items of account was incurred. i �Mortgage — Decedent's Estate — Pboof ôf Debt.— Proof of a debt against the estate of a deceased moTtgagor, and receipt of a dividend f rom the assets of the same, does not extinguish a mortgage given to secure a part of such debt. �MoCraby, C. J. This is a bill to foreclose a mortgage executed by Hugo KuUak to the plaintiffs. The defendants are the heirs at law of the mortgagor, -who, since the execu- tion of the mortgage, has deceased. �The evidence shows that plaintiffs, and the said KuUak, about the first day of April, 1869, entered into a contract as foUows : The plaintiffs, who were dealers in lumber at St. Louis, Missouri, agreed to fumish tô said KuUak, who was engaged in the same business at Topeka, Kansas, such quantities of lumber as he might order for a period of one yeax, on a credit of 60 days, provided no order for more thati ����
