Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/51

This page needs to be proofread.

�ENNER . GREAT ' NORTHERN RAILWAY. The rht'to  a at t clJ2eh from the right to proeeeuteShe Crcut Court kae jurieetion o[ an aotion -!t a corporation by one md for thmmon mUt he . The jurkdiot of the Circuit. Court h prCd by'law8 znacl by COn- gre in pursuance of the Constitution and while this oourt may, by rutes not.inconsistent wth law, mgulat the mmnr in which that }uriditio  he  tlt jurin cnnot by uoh  b*  or T fact are stated in the opinion. Mr. Aborn J. Ro, Mr. Gwr H. Yna, Mr. Alpl P.and Mr. Stephen M. Yemm for appellant: The Circuit Court hould have aligned the Great Igorthem lly with the plzntiff which would defeat jurisdiction. The question of juriliction 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 zlleged 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 etate. The oiginal 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. Broadzay' &c. R//. Co., 9 Civ. Pro. 304, 314; O'Connor v. Va. P. P. Co., 6 Misc. 530,53; Fricktt v. MUrphy, 46 App. Div. 180,186; ay/ v. Central Bank o! Ro, 18  155, 158; Hanna v. Ln, 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. Joph, 92 Alabama, 403, 405; Montym 1.4ght Co. v. Lay, 12! Alabama, 131, 13(}. Such being. the nature of the action, the only poible ground of Federal iurisdiction would be the diverse citizenship of the parties, and unle the required diversity of citizenship is

�