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

SCHULTZ V. DIEHL, 217 U. S. 594 (1910)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 217 U. S. 594 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Schultz v. Diehl, 217 U.S. 594 (1910)

Schultz v. Diehl

No. 166

Submitted by appellants April 22, 1910

Decided April 25, 1910

217 U.S. 594


Under the Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, the circuit court may have jurisdiction of an action brought by a resident of one state against a corporation organized under the laws of another state and stockholders of that corporation for the purpose of removing encumbrances from the property of the corporation in the district in which the suit is brought, even if some of the stockholders are not residents of the district in which they are sued. Jellnik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1.

The plaintiffs and appellants brought this case as minority stockholders of the Highland Gold Mines Company, a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, against the Highland Gold Mines Company, said corporation, and its officers and directors.

It is charged in the bill of complaint that the defendant Crawford, who was the attorney and legal advisor of the company, conspired with defendants Diehl, Grabill, and Sorrensen, officers and directors of the company, to fabricate false and fictitious claims against the company on which judgment was obtained; that the object and purpose of said defendants was to use the judgment as a means of obtaining title in themselves to the company's property.

Other fraudulent acts were also charged.

Upon the trial, defendants Diehl and Grabill moved to dismiss as to them because the court did not have jurisdiction over them for the reason that they had not been sued in the district in which either of them resided or of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 217 U. S. 595

which they were residents or inhabitants, it appearing from the bill that they were citizens of Pennsylvania. The court sustained the motion.

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 |™