192 FEDERAL REPORIEB. �defendants being citizens of New York. The plaintiff is a citizen of New York, and moves to remand the cause. The removal, if made, must be made under section 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 470.) The only pleading put in in the state court, before the removal, was the complaint. The con- troversies set out therein are not varied by the petition for removal or by anything now before this court. Stevens and Kichardson are trustees for the plaintiff under the will of Paran Stevens. Stevens and Melcher and the plaintiff are executors of said will. Stanfield is lessee of an apartment house in New York, which is part of the trust property under a lease thereof made to him by Stevens and Eichardson as sueh trustees, by the terms of which the rent he is to pay is to be paid by him to them. The complaint alleges that a valid agreement exists between the plaintiff and said trustees that said rent should and shall be paid directly by Stanfield to the plain- tiff at New York, and that they insist on having Stanfield pay it to them, and that he refuses to pay it to her. �In addition to alleging a violation of said agreement by said trus- tees, the complaint alleges that the trustees have wrongfully retained from the rent paid to them moneys claimed to have been paid by them for expenses of suits brought by them against Stanfield to com- pel him to pay the rent to them, and moneys for commissions, and have refused to pay over to the plaintiff the whole amount of moneys so received from Stanfield, and have wholly failed in the performance of their duties as trustees, and reside in Massachusetts, and have no property in the state of New York, and are of but little pecuniary responsibility, and the plaintiff has suffered great loss and been put to great expense in her efforts to protect herself against the wrongful acts of said trustees. There is other property besides said apartment house held by said trustees under said trust. Founded on the above allegations the complaint prays : �(1) That the trustees be enjoined from collecting from Stanfield the rent of the apartment house, and from receiving and disposing of any moneys as trustees of the plaintiff, and from doing any act as such trustees ; (2) that they be required to account as such trustees; (3) that they be removed as sueh trustees ; (4) that some other and competent person or persons be appointed trustee or trustees in their place ; (5) that they pay to the plaintiff such dam- ages as she has sustained by their wrongful acts. �Certainly,inthe matters which are the subjectof those five prayers, there are controversies which are wholly between the plaintiff on the one side and the trustees on the other side. Stanfield is not an ��� �
