US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

CHICAGO V. MILLS, 204 U. S. 321 (1907)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 204 U. S. 321 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907)

Chicago v. Mills

No. 286

Submitted December 21, 1906

Decided February 4, 1907

204 U.S. 321


Although the certificate of the circuit court may not state exactly how the jurisdictional question certified arose, this Court can ascertain it from the record, together with the opinion of the court below made a part thereof.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court must be determined with reference to the attitude of the case at the date of the filing of the bill.

When a citizen of one state has a cause of action against a citizen of another state which he may lawfully prosecute in a federal court, his motive in preferring a federal tribunal, in the absence of fraud and collusion, is immaterial.

If it does not appear that there was any collusion within the meaning of the ninety-fourth rule in equity for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, not otherwise existing, on the circuit court of the United States, that court does not lose its jurisdiction of a suit brought by a nonresident stockholder, after request to and refusal by the corporation, to enjoin chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 204 U. S. 322

the enforcement of an ordinance against the corporation, and of which the court would not have had jurisdiction had the corporation been complainant, because subsequent events make it to the interest of the corporation and its officer to make common cause with the complainant stockholder. An admission by complainant that he expected the action to be brought in the United States court does not necessarily show collusion to confer jurisdiction.

In this case, held on the facts that no collusion between the stockholder bringing the suit and the corporation refusing to bring it was shown that deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction thereover.

143 F.4d 0 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 204 U. S. 325

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™