Rountree v. Adams Express Co.

Citations

• 165 F. 152
• 91 C.C.A. 186
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4732

Syllabus

<p>1. Courts (§ 315*) —Federal Courts — Diversity or Citizenship — “Joint-Stock Company.”</p> <p>Where diversity of citizenship was the basis of federal jurisdiction in a suit to restrain defendant from prosecuting an action in the state court, and a hill alleged that complainant was a “joint-stock company” duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and a citizen of that state, and that defendant was a citizen of Missouri, where the suit was brought, jurisdiction was not shown, since a “joint-stock company” is not a corporation hut a partnership, and it could not be presumed that the members were all nonresidents of Missouri.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 801; Dec. Dig. § 315.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3816, 3S17.</p> <p>Diverse citizenship as ground for federal jurisdiction, see notes to Shipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249; Mason v. Dullagham, 27 C. C. A. 298.]</p> <p>2. Courts (§ 289*) — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Interstate Commerce.</p> <p>A bill by an express company to restrain a messenger’s wife from suing a railroad company for her husband’s death because of the messenger’s contract to save the express company and any of its contracting railroads harmless from any liability resulting from personal injuries to him, etc., did not state a case arising under Const. U. S. art. 1, § 10, relating to interstate commerce, or under the fourteenth amendment of such Constitution, so as to entitle complainant to sue in the federal courts on that ground.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 289.*</p> <p>Jurisdiction in cases involving federal questions, see notes to Bailey v. Mosher, It C. C. A. 308: Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Mining Co., 35 C. C. A. 7.]</p>