b FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �Here there is an entire absence of any such memorandum, and the affirmative proof shows that the trustee who acted as auctioneer did not understand that a sale was made or the lot struck off on Mrs. Hil- liard's bid. The rule above quoted is affirmed in Doty v. Wilder, 15 111. 407, and has ever since been followed by the courts of this state. �It is urged upon the part of the defendant that Wright was a nec- essary party to this suit. I cannot see how that can be under the facts in the case, because there was nothing of record showing Wright's interest, and no binding contract estant showing any inter- est in him. �The only rule that I know of is that the complainant must make those parties who are known to him to have a legal or equitable interest in the property, or whom the pleadings or proof discloses have such an interest as that the court cannot proceed to a decree without bringing them into the case. �The complainant in this case is not obliged now, on this alleged sale, to amend his bill and make Wright a party any more than he would if it had been disclosed on the hearing that Mr. Hilliard had made a verbal agreement, void under the statute of frauds, to sell the property to some third person. I therefore think there is nothing shown in the case which sbould deprive the complainant of his decree. �There will, therefore, be a decree entered against the detendant. ���Johnson v. Thb Philadelphia, Wimiington a Baltijiobe E. Co.* �(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. May 1, 1881.) �1, Removal op Causes — Citizbnship— Oonsolidated Railhoad Haten-o Chab- �TEB FROM Different States. �A railroad formed by the consolidation of tliree roads cliartered respectively by tliree different states, cannot, wben sued in the courts of one of those states by a citizen thereof , remove the case into the federal courts under the act of March 3, 1875, upon the ground that the charters obtained from the other two states gives it a foreign citizenship. �2. Samb. �The P., W. & B. Railroad was chartered by the state of Pennsylvania. Sub- sequently, by concurrent legislation of the states of Pennsylvania, Mary- land, and Delaware, it was Consolidated with two other roads, chartered respectively by the latter two states, the Consolidated road retaining the name of the P., W. & B. Railroad. Suit was brought by a citizen of Pennsylvania, in the courts of that state, against the P., W. & B. Railroad, who thereupon re- moved the case to the federal court on the ground of foreign citizenship. Hdd, that the federal court had no jurisdiction, and that the suit should be renianded. �*Reported by Frauk P. Pricliard, Esq , of tliB PliiladelpUia bar. ��� �
