MERCHANT3 NAT. BANK, V. THOMPSON. ,;877 �the equity of redemption ,o{ Edward Thompson, of Charles- town, in the state of New Hampshire, in five shares of the trust property known as the Huntington-avenue l^ndSj. held by the plaintiff as collateral security for the paymept of said Thompson's bond for $20,000 and interest, whioh had corne to the plaintiff by assignment from the original holders thereof, and on which ail but $1,000 of the principal, and large arrears of interest, were overdue and unpaid. The defendant Thompson appeared and answered, admitting most of the allegations of the bill, but averring that, under the peculiar terms of the trust deed of the lands, a pledgee or mortgagee of shares had no right of foreclosure; and, further, that he had sold one of the five shares to Henty M. Clarke, of Boston. Thereupon, June 15, 1880, the plaintiff amended its bill and inade Clarke a party defendant, and on the same day a subpœna was issued to said Clarke to appearon the first Monday of July, 1880, September 13, 1880, Thompson. filed in the statecourt a petition to remove the cause to tl^is-icourt, averring that the bank is a corporation located in and- doing businesB^n the state of Massachusetts, and that :theî peti- tioner was, at the commencement of the suit, and still is, a citizen of New Hampshire. A bond was filed,:;tO:which no objection is, taken. �The suit was.entered in this court on the first day pf this term, October 15, 18S0, and I find copies of the bill, amended bill, answer, etc. I do not find any order of the supreme court coneerning the removal, nor is one necessary, though it is usual. I do find a certificate of the clerk that an.appear- ance was entered for Henry M. Clarke "during the April term, A. D. 1880," but whether before the petition for re- moval was filed, on the last day of that term, does not appear. �The defendant Clarke, having been brought in by amend- ment, is a party to the suit as much as if he had originally been named as a defendant. �The first objection taken to the removal is that the defend- ant Thompson bas adapted his petition to the first clause of section 2 of the act of 1875, (18 St. 470,) as if he were the sole defendant, taking no notice of Clarke, while he now at- ����
