LANGDON t1. HILLSIDE COAL&: IROlt
co. CO·
·
LANGDON"_ HILLSIDE CoAL
&
IRON
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. Ne;w YorR. . February 18, 1890.) L RBMOVAL OJ' CAUSES-JURIBDIOTI9NAL AMOUNT.
Where there is nothing in the pleadings by direot averment as to the amoul).t 01' value of the matter in dispute, and no faots from which it .can be ascertained that the sum or value islesB than $2,000, and the petition, for relIlOval from the state to the federal court alleges. that the matter in disI1\ltll exceeds the value of 12,000, which. allegation is not controverted by speoialplll3 nor by affidavit, a motion to remand to the state oourt, :for want of federal jurisdiction, must be denied. A stookholder of a corporation oannot obtain an injunction to restrain slander of the title of property belonging to the oorporation. OF TITLE.
So
CoRPORATIONS-RIGHTS Oil'
B. S. Harrrwn, for complainant. B. H.Bri8tow and Buchanan & Steele, for defendant. WALLACE, J. The motion to remand this suit to the state court, from whiqh it was removed upon the petition of the defendant, has 110 merit whatever. It proceeds upon the ground that the matter in dispute does not exceed the sum or value of $2,000, and consequently is. not cognizable by this court, when its jurisdiction is invoked merely cause olthe diversity Qfcitizenship of the parties. There is nothitlg in the pleadings by direct averment as to the amount or value of the ter in dispute, and no facts from which it can be ascertained that the sum or value is less than the required amount. The petition for maval alleges that the n1atter in dislJute exceeds, exclusive of inter,est and costs, the sum or value'Of $2,000; and this is not controverted either by a special plea by the complainant or by affidavit, and it stands unchallengedin' any way. The motion is denied. ON DEMURRER TO BIJ,L.
On Motion to Remand.
The defendant has demurred to a bill to restra.iri the defendant from the publication of defamatory statemeI1ts. I had supposed that the question ill the case was whether the ownero{ real estitte has 'a. remedy by injunction in a court of equity to restrliin a defendant from circulating s libel concerning the title of the property, or from s'threatened publication ofa slander of title to a third person who is in treaty with the owner for the purchase of the real estate. But I find it to be a case'in which a stockholder of'a corporation sues t-o restrain slander of the title of property belonging to the corporation. Suchan action cannot be maintained, either in equity or at law. In.' cidentally, the stockholder may be damnified. in consequence of the defamation,by the depreciation of the value of his shares; but so hew-ould be whenever the corporation sustains serious loss by the tort or breach of contract. of a third person. The complainant has no title to the 'real estate, the 'injury to whidhis the subject-matter of the action; that is in the corporation, and any redress must be sought by the corpbration. I The demurrer is sustained. v.41F.no.11-39 WALLACE,
J.
.HILI{
GLASGOW
R.
., "
.
( (Circuit CO'UIT.t; D. Kentueky;August 17, 1888;); '.' .i
1.
'U'tiJWlioBsi()l' OORPORATlON. ' , "'",','11',1"" "", r,'2I' Bt,';"U,.S.'c.876. limlt,ing 't-h.\l",jUriSdietion of Oire,uttcourts to suits in 'lJ I.' fCb"'the'matter in disputeexceeds:$2;OOO, the oircuit cOlll:'t·hasjurisdlctionof a 'i , l)i'Ought·byastockholder for thebel1etlt of the corporation atldanl other stock· ." .Millers wlwmar choose t/) Mine in, torestl'8inthe diredtors from 'l>aYing ouUssets of the corporation to the·' amount of '100,000, though the comPlainant holds less than '1,000 worth of stock,the matter in dispute in such, case.befug the wrong done, :. ·i1ihe,oOrporation.· <.: . " 'W '.
IROUIT,"
C,9J!R'TS.--;rURISDIOTION-U-
AMOUN1'-BILL TO RESTJtAIN,':PATtN.,·GO'l7'l' AS8BTI
9. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-AlmNDlIfJ!lNTOI',CllAM'ER&-RIGHTS 61f. BTOO1dl0LDERS. Under Gen. St. Ky. c. 68, § 8, which reserves to the legislature power to amend
or repeal any corporate charter granted by it, tl!at, 1\0 01' repeal shall impair other rights previously vested," the legislature'has no POWlll,' to amend the charter of a l'8ilroad corporation So as to 'direct that the proceeds arising J\(lad shall, aftIlrpayingth,e be applied from the lease or in payment of muniCipal Donds given In exchange for corporate stOck issued to the municipality, since such application of the corporate funds would be unconstitu: . t,ionalj1-.$ inter1ering thi:l vested rights, of the otll.llr ' OJ!' !\P;NJ;>S B"t CoRPORATION. ',',., " ,: "
I$.
"
, 'Such'application of the eorporate funds is not validated fact that the cor· poration lhQS indorsed the bonds, since such indorsement does not make the corpo-. ; debtor. \ . ' , ,. " , ," . ''o " :A stOCkholder may enjiiill' the
mlsapplicatioll of corporate fulids under an agree. intll' !>efore hls, stock, was iBSUeda where ,9-e had a ve!jted l'ightw restock before pla e., ' ", ' ('
Oll' CORPORAT, FUNDs.
,deD;lu'#,erto bill. · ': ; ' : :i;' , :, & Ha7'r'l8, f()r complalnl:l,Qt., PorterI!cMcQv,01!J1l ant Walter Et'O,1UJ, for defendants., &
JACKSON, The a!5& in.t1l,e Glasg()w road Company, brings this suit to restrain the directors'of said company from the misappropriationl.of the fundllof:said corporation. The case ill this;;,: ,;., ,":, ,,', "r.r;h >GIl.\s,gpw, ;;IHJ,ilroa.(l ,(fpmpal1Y e of iID: act aPPl'pveci ft'411chises ,and, line: l)f road JI1, Bar,ren cqUl1ty be,. IpI)ging. to Ommty C9;rnpanY,;1\'pipl) l}ad, vious!y chartE¥:e<l, in . was mage) ,I.\pd. :the 'the J;igh!lJ,: franchisEls, : lltl1t,er ,.By, aq of thll 2p;,: 1&69, ,the,Glllsgow Railroaq ,Wlleiso,lll.menqed te;l, out put: of might to. of. :8,y, ;the; t,O:wn; lof the Q9u,n,tyof :aarrau) \Vere 1;Ipon,p,IJOWJ;'M9,te,Qi' the to for the :9f;AAid, , the, ,to'fP. of Glasgow 1 ;Q.QP shares, 1 o(llaid county. to sharesj said shares being each for tht sum 9f$25,' "SJ¥Q '" , .i
t· _ '/