1. Equity — Pleading—Parties— Presumption ox Appeal.

Where complainant by leave of court flies an amended bill, from which he omits one of the parties made defendant in the, original bill, it will be presumed on appeal, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, that leave was given to dismiss as to such party.

2. Same — Parties—Redemption from Mortgage — Jurisdiction.

Complainant liled a bill praying for the cancellation of a mortgage on the ground that he never received any consideration therefor, and that the foreclosure iirocoedings were void; or that he be allowed to redeem; and lie made defendants a number of occupants of the land as grantees of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. One of these occupants was a citizen of the same state as complainant. Bold, that he was not an indispensable party, and, as his retention would defeat the jurisdiction of tlie court, based on the diverse citizenship oi the parties, it was proper to dismiss the bill as to him. Hanford, District Judge, dissenting.

3. Same.

It is also proper, in order to perfect the jurisdiction, to dismiss one who had a joint interest with complainant in the premises, and whom he had made defendant because ho refused to join in the bill, for he is not an indispensable party. Hanford, District Judge, dissenting.

4. Mortgages — Redemption— Amotjkt — Improvements.

The mortgage and the note secured by it were delivered to one H. for the purpose of raising money to conduct certain litigation. H. transferred them to defendant’s grantor, who foreclosed the mortgage. All the money H. ever received for the mortgage was $-100, and the mortgagor received nothing except services rendered by II., and found to be worth that sum. Held, that upon redemption defendants are entitled, in addition to the value of improvements made by them, and taxes paid, to the sum of $400, but not to the face value of the note and mortgage.

Affirming 46 Fed. Rep. 424.