Chesapeake & O. Coal Agency Co. v. Fire Creek Coal & Coke Co.

Citations

• 119 F. 942
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5355

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts—District of Suit.</p> <p>A circuit court of the United States is without jurisdiction of a suit as against defendants who are nonresidents of the district, where the complainant is also a nonresident, and the only ground of jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, unless such defendants directly waive their privilege by submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court; and the filing of a demurrer to the bill, although on other grounds, is not such a waiver.</p> <p>2. Injunction—Right to Relief—Unlawful Interference with Performance of Contract.</p> <p>The bill of plaintiff corporation alleged that it was engaged in the business of selling coal and coke; that it had contracts with defendant coal companies by which it was to take all their product at the mines, to furnish transportation, and sell the same at prices fixed by the companies, receiving a stipulated sum per ton for its services; that by the terms of such contracts defendants were not liable for damages for failing to furnish coal to plaintiff, where such failure was caused by strikes; that in reliance on such, contracts plaintiff had made contracts for the sale of large quantities of coal and coke, and had provided vessels for its transportation from the seaboard; that the defendant companies were willing to furnish such coal and coke, but were prevented from doing so by the wrongful and illegal acts of individual defendants, who were conducting a strike among the miners, and who by intimidation and threats prevented others from working in the mines. Held, that the bill showed such contract rights in plaintiff as entitled it to maintain the suit in its own right for their protection, independently of the defendant companies, and that it stated a cause of action for an injunction against the individual 'defendants to prevent their further unlawful interference with the performance of the contracts by the coal companies; it being further shown that plaintiff was w