�ENNER ?. GREAT ' NORTHERN RAILWAY. The r?ht'to ? a a?t t? clJ?2?eh? from the right to proeeeuteShe C?rcu?t Court kae jurie?etion o[ an aotion ?-?!?t a corporation by one md for th?mmon mU?t he ?. The jurkdiot? of the Circuit. Court h pr?C?d by'law8 znac?l by COn- gre? in pursuance of the Constitution and while this oourt may, by rutes not.inconsistent w?th law, mgulat? the m?mn?r in which that }uri?di?tio? ? he ? tl?t juri?n c?nnot by ?uoh ? b* ? or T? fact? are stated in the opinion. Mr. Aborn J. Ro?, Mr. Gwr? H. Y?na?, Mr. Alp?l P?.and Mr. Stephen M. Ye?m?m for appellant: The Circuit Court ?hould have aligned the Great Igorthem l?l?y with the plz?ntiff which would defeat jurisdiction. The question of juri?liction i? directly raised in and &p- pea? by the record.. The action is the common one in equity by a stockholder of a corporation suing on behalf of himself and of other stock- holders to recover for a wrong z?lleged to have been done to th? corporation by it? officers dealing on it? behalf to their own personal profit and advantage and to the waste and in- jury of the ?orporation, it? fund? and e?tate. The o?iginal complaint in the state court stated a good cause of action as was conceded by the circultiudge in the opinion ?(?inlng the demurrer? which cited Young v:/)?ce, 8 Hun, 61, 84; Frothingham v. Broad?zay' &c. R//. Co., 9 Civ. Pro. 304, 314; O'Connor v. Va. P. P. Co., ?6 Misc. 530,53?; Frick?tt ?v. MUrphy, 46 App. Div. 180,186; ?ay/? v. Central Bank o! Ro?, 18 ? 155, 158; Hanna v. L?n, 179 N.Y. 107. Stewart ?. E? &c., 17 Minnesota, 3721 400, 401; Cook on Corporations (5th ed.) 1S82; E/k/ns v. Camden & At. R. R. Co., ?6 N.J. Eq. 514; Poxsons v. Jo?ph, 92 Alabama, 403, 405; Mont?ym? 1.4ght Co. v. La?y, 12! Alabama, 131, 13(}. Such being. the nature of the action, the only po?ible ground of Federal iurisdiction would be the diverse citizenship of the parties, and unle? the required diversity of citizenship is
�
