Opinion of the Court. several subscriptions, and also in favor of defendants Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson. Plaintiff moved for a new trial as to Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson, which was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory from the judgment in favor of Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. The record does not contain the appeal of the other defendants from the judgment which had been rendered in favor of plaintiff and against them, but it appears from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Territory that they did so appeal, and that all the contesting defendants were before that court. On January 29, 1894, the judgment of the District Court on plaintiff's appeal was affirmed with costs. On the same day the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Territory was filed in the case, a copy of which was transmitted in accordance with our rule, is referred to by counsel for appellant as part of the record, and as such may serve to supply certain marked deficiencies otherwise existing therein. From this opinion it appears that plaintiff appealed from the judgment in favor of Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson, and that twentyfour other defendants appealed from the judgment against them. The Supreme Court, after rehearsing the facts in the case, stated the question on plaintiff's appeal to be whether Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson had paid their subscriptions to the capital stock of the company as contended on their behalf; and that the questions raised on the appeal of the other defendants were whether plaintiff while a delinquent subscriber himself could maintain this action in equity against other delinquent subscribers; whether the judgment at law in Wilson's favor was fraudulent and void; and whether if the judgment was valid plaintiff could maintain an action on it as the real party in interest. The Supreme Court held that a delinquent subscriber could maintain the action but must contribute pari passu with the other subscribers to the payment of the amount due him; that the judgment was not conclusive on the subscribers, ought to have been reduced by a very large amount, and would have to be reversed in order to afford the subscribers the opportunity to test the validity of Opinion of the Court. Wilson's claim against the corporation; and that Wilson was not the real party in interest at the beginning of the action and could not maintain it in his own name, which latter conclusion called for the affirmance of the judgment in favor of Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson, and the absolute reversal of the judgment against the other defendants and the remanding of the cause to the court below with directions to dismiss the action, it being, therefore, unnecessary to pass on the question as to whether or not Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson had paid their subscriptions to the capital stock of the company. While the judgment of affirmance appears in the record, the judgment of reversal with directions does not. From the judg ment of affirmance, the plaintiff appealed to this court and gave bond running to Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson, or either of them, and citation was issued to Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson only. It is evident from the foregoing statement that this appeal must be dismissed. The complaint alleged that Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson each subscribed to fifty shares of the capital stock of the Ogden Power Company of the par value of one hundred dollars each, and that each was liable for five thousand dollars for which recovery was sought. This did not reach the jurisdictional amount. Chapman v. Handley, 151 U. S. 443. It is true that these defendants contended that the amount due from each on their several subscriptions had been paid by a conveyance of land which was owned by them jointly, but the matter in dispute was the liability of each for five thousand dollars, and the fact that their several subscriptions may have been paid with joint property would not make the question of the liability of each a question of the liability of all, and they did not seek a recovery over. But it is said that the matter in dispute far exceeded the jurisdictional limit, because Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson had filed a cross complaint seeking to set aside and cancel Wilson's judgment against the Ogden Power Company, which was a judgment for $22,405.16. This contention, however, only demonstrates that the appeal must be dismissed for want of proper parties, Counsel for Plaintiffs in Error. as the other defendants were directly and vitally interested in the disposition of the cross complaint and necessary parties to the appeal. Not having been made such, and there being no summons and severance, or the equivalent, the appeal cannot be sustained. Davis v. Mercantile Trust Co., 152 U. S. 590; Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179. Indeed this objection is fatal in any view, for while this record is manifestly inadequate and insufficient, it does appear and is conceded that the other defendants were before the Supreme Court of the Territory on their own appeal as well as Kiesel, Carnahan and Anderson on Wilson's appeal, and that the case was disposed of as to all of them on a ground common to all. We cannot be required to consider such a case by piecemeal, and if we were to take jurisdiction and determine the questions which have been argued at the bar, we should, in fact, be disposing of matters affecting parties not before us and who have been afforded no opportunity to be heard. Appeal dismissed. FOWLER v. LAMSON. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 88. Argued and submitted November 9, 1896. - Decided November 30, 1896. The printed record in this case is so fragmentary in its nature as to leave no foundation for the court to even guess that there was a Federal question in the case, or that it was decided by the state court against the right set up here by the plaintiffs in error; and, under the well settled rule that where a case is brought to'this court on error or appeal from a judgment of a state court, unless it appear in the record that a Federal question was raised in the state court before entry of final judgment in the case, this court is without jurisdiction, it must be dismissed. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. E. F. Thompson for plaintiffs in error. Mr. G. W. Delamater, Mr. Frank H. Clark and Mr. William H. Wil kins were on his brief. Opinion of the Court. Mr. L. H. Bisbee and Mr. D. M. Kirton for defendants in error submitted on their brief. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court. The printed record which is before this court in this case is so fragmentary in its nature as to leave no foundation for us to even guess that there was a Federal question in the case or that it was decided by the state court against the right now set up by plaintiffs in error. error. The record opens with an assignment of errors which it is alleged were made by the Supreme Court of Illinois, and fourteen grounds of error are set forth, many of them setting up that such court, by the judgment in suit, erred in the decision of several Federal questions. Then follows the writ of Then comes what is termed a decree in the case of George Fowler v. The Cherokee Brilliant Coal and Mining Company and others, in the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, which decree, after reciting the fact of a hearing and a reference to a master in chancery and his report thereon, proceeds to make certain findings of fact, and to give extracts from the constitution and statutes of Kansas, which, briefly stated, are as follows: (1.) The incorporation of the coal and mining company under the statutes of Kansas. (2.) An extract from the constitution and statutes of Kansas providing for a double liability of stockholders of an insolvent corporation. (3.) An extract from the statutes of Kansas providing for the dissolution of corporations and for a recovery against the stockholders therein for debts due from the company. (4.) An extract from the statutes of limitation of Kansas relating to absconding or concealed debtors. (5.) Findings of indebtedness from the coal and mining company to the Fowlers, plaintiffs in error; the giving of a note and mortgage for such indebtedness, and default in the payment thereof and a dissolution of the company. (6.) The recovery of judgment in Illinois in favor of the Opinion of the Court. plaintiffs in error herein on account of the debt due them from the corporation; the issue and return of execution upon such judgment wholly unsatisfied. (7.) The ownership of stock in the company by the Lamsons. Upon these findings the decree directs a recovery by the plaintiffs herein against the defendants Lamsons, stockholders in the dissolved and insolvent corporation, of the amount of the Illinois judgment against the corporation which had been obtained by plaintiffs herein. This decree is followed in the record by an order made by the appellate court in Illinois reversing the decree of the court below. Then follows an assignment of errors committed by the court in ordering such reversal, after which the opinion of Judge Wilken of the Supreme Court of Illinois is printed, which affirms the judgment of the appellate court. In that opinion no Federal question is discussed or decided. The point actually decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois was, as shown by that opinion, that the constitution and statutes of Kansas in relation to the liability of stockholders in an insolvent corporation provide a special remedy for enforcing that liability, and that such remedy only could be pursued, and that the courts of Illinois would not enforce a statutory liability under a Kansas statute providing a special remedy against stockholders. Following this opinion is a decree of affirmance by the Supreme Court of Illinois; after which comes a petition for a writ of error from this court and an allowance thereof. This completes the record. It will be seen that there are no pleadings in the record; no evidence is returned; no exceptions to any decision of the court are to be found; no request to the court to find upon any Federal question; no refusal of the court to find and no finding upon any such question. Thus there is an entire absence in this whole record of any fact showing that the Supreme Court of Illinois or either of the lower courts decided any Federal question whatever. The assignment of errors alleged to have been made by the Illinois Supreme Court is unavailable for the purpose of showing any Federal question decided, where the record itself does not show that |