8TEVENS V. BICHABDSON. 193 �indispensable party to any of said controversies, although he may be a proper party to the suit by reason of his being lessee of the apart- ment house. Melcher, as executer, bas no concem with any of said controversies. �But there are other mattera in the complaint. The trust for the benefit of the plaintiff is one for her life, for the Bum of $1,000,000. It has not been completed by the executors. It was for the executors, under the will, to put into the hands of the trustees property to that amount. That has been done only in part. The complaint prays that the executors may complete the trust fund by conveying real estate to the trustees ; and that they pay to the plaintiff what may be due to her for intereston the trust fund; and that they pay to her, or for her benefit, out of the estate other moneys which she claims ; and that they do not charge against her certain moneys which the estate has paid ; and that they be restrained from paying to certain trustees, of certain residuary trusts created by said will, any moneys now in, or which may hereafter corne into, their hands as such executors. It also prays that the rent of said apartment house, under the lease to Stanfield, be paid to the plaintiff. There is nothing in any of these allegations which makes Melcher, as executer, a necessary party to any of the said controversies between the plaintiff and her trustees. �Those controversies, as embodied in the said five prayers in respect to the trustees, can be fully determined as between the parties act- ually interested in them without the presence of either Melcher or Stanfield as a party. If the suit had sought no relief but what is embodied in said five prayers, neither Melcher ner Stanfield weuld have been a necessary or an indispensable party te those issues. The controversies involved in those five prayers do not cease to be con- troversies wholly between the plaintiff on the one side and the trus- tees on the other, because the plaintiff has chosen to embody in her complaint distinct controversies between herself and the executors, or a controversy between herself and Stanfield. Whether there is or is not such a connection between the varions transactions set out in the complaint as to make all of the defendants proper parties to the suit, and to every controversy embraced in it, at least in such a sense as to protect the complaint against a demurrer for multifariousness or misjoinder, is a question not affecting the matter of removal. If there was any fault in pleading in that respect it was the plaintiff's. On the question of removal she rnust abide by the case made by her complaint. The question of multifariousness or misjoinder cornes ?.9,no.4:— 13 ��� �
