Skip to main content
· 6/27/1904

Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott

Citations

  • 130 F. 820
  • 65 C.C.A. 158
  • 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4228

Syllabus

<p>1. Federal and State Courts — Conflicting Jurisdiction — Property in Custodia Legis.</p> <p>A corporation’s franchise having expired by limitation, and its assets having been delivered to a trust company appointed as liquidator of its affairs, minority stockholders filed a bill in the state court for an inspection of its books, the ascertainment of its debts and liabilities, together with a sale and distribution of its assets, and other equitable relief. The corporation and its majority stockholders appeared in such suit, and pending a motion therein for an inspection of the books a creditor of the corporation obtained a collusive judgment in the federal court by confession, and obtained the return of an execution unsatisfied, and immediately filed a creditors’ bill for the appointment of a receiver in the federal court, who, when appointed, took possession of the assets, which the federal court refused to surrender to a receiver subsequently appointed by the state court. Held, that the state court had first acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the administration of such corporation’s assets, though it had not first taken physical control thereof, and hence was entitled to their surrender by the receiver of the federal court.</p> <p>2. Same — Diverse Citizenship.</p> <p>The fact that the plaintiff in a suit in the federal court, by reason of diverse citizenship, was entitled to sue therein for the establishment of his claim, did not entitle him to have the assets of the corporation administered in such court, since it would be presumed that full recognition would be accorded to his judgment by the state court</p> <p>IT 2. Diverse citizenship as a ground of federal jurisdiction, see notes to Snipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249; Mason v. Dullagham, 27 O. O. A. 29S.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • excusing the plaintiffs from responding to requests to admit because, in part, the requests sought information related to the fundamental disagreement of the lawsuit and were therefore not “designed to identify and eliminate those matters on which the parties agree”
  • excusing the plaintiffs from responding to requests to admit because, in part, the requests sought information related to the fundamental disagreement of the lawsuit and were therefore not “designed to identify and eliminate those matters on which the parties agree”
  • “Rule 36 is not a discovery procedure.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Severens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.