Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 204 U.S. 320, click here.
Chicago v. Mills No. 286 Submitted December 21, 1906 Decided February 4, 1907 204 U.S. 321
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
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 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. 430 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907) in 204 U.S. 321 204 U.S. 322–204 U.S. 325. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2YCM98Q1N1MHU6B.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907), in 204 U.S. 321, pp. 204 U.S. 322–204 U.S. 325. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2YCM98Q1N1MHU6B.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907). cited in 1907, 204 U.S. 321, pp.204 U.S. 322–204 U.S. 325. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2YCM98Q1N1MHU6B.
|