MacGinniss v. Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co.

Citations

• 119 F. 96
• 55 C.C.A. 648
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4643

Syllabus

<p>1. Removal of Causes,—Separable Controversy—Suit by Stockholder.</p> <p>A suit in a state court by a stockholder of a domestic corporation, who is a citizen of the same state, against such corporation and a foreign corporation, the purpose of which is to enjoin the latter from obtaining and exercising control over the property, business, and corporate stock of the domestic corporation, does not involve a separate controversy between complainant and the foreign corporation, which gives the latter the right of removal., Such suit is necessarily based entirely upon the rights of complainant as a stockholder of the domestic corporation, and to every controversy between him and the foreign corporation involving such rights, the domestic corporation is a necessary party.</p> <p>2. Same—Incidental Relief against One Defendant. '</p> <p>Where the relief sought against one of several defendants is merely incidental to the principal purpose of the suit, the fact that such incidental relief pertains to one only of the defendants does not make it a separable controversy so as to give such defendant the right of removal.</p> <p>8. Same—Prayer for Relief not Supported by Averments of Bill.</p> <p>In order to show the existence of a controversy, facts must be alleged which present a question.for the determination of the court, and a prayer, inter alia, for relief against one of several defendants, does not create a separate controversy with such defendant, where there are no averments in the bill upon which'such relief could be based.</p> <p>4. Same—Arrangement of Parties—Suit by Stockholder.</p> <p>In a suit by a stockholder in a domestic corporation against such corporation and a foreign corporation to enjoin the latter from obtaining and exercising control over-the property and business of the former, which the bill alleges is about to be accomplished through an illegal conspiracy between the defendants, the domestic corporation is not a party in the same interest with compl