Federal Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.

Citations

• 187 F. 474
• 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5980

Syllabus

<p>1. Courts (§ 310*)- — Necessary Parties.</p> <p>The rule that all persons interested in a suit in equity in a federal court having jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship nm'st he made parties does not apply, where the bringing in of a dispensable party will oust the jurisdiction of the court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 857; Dec. Dig. § 310.*]</p> <p>2. Courts (§ 317*) — Parties—Necessary Parties.</p> <p>A federal court, In determining whether the requisite diversity of citizenship to give it jurisdiction exists, must align the parties on one side or the other according to their real interests.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 317.*]</p> <p>3. Courts (§ 308*) — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Citizexsiiip oe Parties.</p> <p>The Federal Mining Company, a Delaware corporation, the Bunker Hill Company, and the January Company, both Oregon corporations, each owned a mining claim, and all three claims conflicted. The Federal Company sued the Bunker I-Iill Company in the United States court to quiet title and for an accounting for ores taken from the overlaps, and the January Company had .a similar suit against the Bunker Hill Company in the state court. The Bunker Hill Company moved to make the January Company a party in the suit in the United States court, which was resisted on the ground that, because of the ownership of the entire January stock by the Federal Company, it could not he a defendant, 'hut must he a plaintiff, which would destroy the jurisdiction of the court by having an Oregon citizen on both sides of the case. Held, that the January Company could be made a defendant, since its claim was adverse to tlie Federal Company, though the relation between the two companies was not hostile.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 855, 856; Dec. Dig. § 308.*</p> <p>Diverse citizenship as a ground of federal jurisdiction, see notes to Shipp v, Williams, 10 C. C. A.