|
|
Schultz v. Diehl, 217 U.S. 594 (1910)
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.
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
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Syllabus
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 which they were residents or inhabitants, it appearing from the bill that they were citizens of Pennsylvania. The court sustained the motion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Schultz v. Diehl, 217 U.S. 594 (1910) in 217 U.S. 594 217 U.S. 595. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3MLM8EX5EWQYJW5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Schultz v. Diehl, 217 U.S. 594 (1910), in 217 U.S. 594, page 217 U.S. 595. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3MLM8EX5EWQYJW5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Schultz v. Diehl, 217 U.S. 594 (1910). cited in 1910, 217 U.S. 594, pp.217 U.S. 595. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3MLM8EX5EWQYJW5.
|