DOEMITZER V. ILLINOIS & ST. LOUIS BRIDGE 00. 217 �parties to these suits for want of jurisdietion of the court over tbem, the demurrers must be sustaiaed and the bilis dismissed without prejudice. Ordered accordingly. ���DoRMiTZEB and otbers v. Illinois & St. Louis Bbidob GoMPANZ and others. �(Circuit Vourt, D. Massachusetts. Januarj 29, 1881.) �1. Cmccrr Court— Jubisdictioh. �A circuit court has no jurisdietion of a civil action between or- ^ dinary parties, either originally or by removal, if any of the necessary parties to the controversy on opposite aides are citizens of the same State. �2. Nbcbssary Paett— Corpobation. �A corporation is a necessary party to a Suit for collecting moneys dueforunpaid assessments of its stock, oifor capital once paid in, but afterwards improperly divlded. �8. Circuit Court — Jueibdic ; ron. �A circuit court cannot entertain a suit where a party, whose legal presence in the proceeding is necessary, cannot be subjected to its jurisdietion. �4. Same— Atiacjiment. �A circuit court cannot attach the property of an absent defendant, unless he is an inhabitant of the district where the suit is brought.— [Ed. �In Equity. Demurrer. �Warren e Brandeis, for complainants. �Rmsell dt Putnam and Edwin H. Abbott, for defendante. �Lowell, g. J. Of the points so ably and thoroughly ar- gued I shall concern myself with but one. It is generally understood to be settledby 2'Ae Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, and Pacific R. Go. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289, that under the statute of 1875, as well as under former acts, circuit courts of the United States have no jurisdietion of a civil action be- tween ordinary parties, whether originally or by removal, if any of the necessary parties to the controversy on opposite sides are citizens of the same state. It may be said that this ��� �
