Schultz v. Diehl, 217 U.S. 594 (1910)

SCHULTZ v. DIEHL.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

No. 166. Submitted by appellants April 22, 1910.—Decided April 25, 1910.

Under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, the Circuit Court may have jurisdiction of an action brought by a resident of one State against a corporation organized under the laws of another State and stockholders of that corporation for the purpose of removing encumbrances from the property of the corporation in the District in which the suit is brought, even if some of the stockholders are not residents of the District in which they are sued. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1.

The plaintiffs and appellants brought this case as minority stockholders of the Highland Gold Mines Company, a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, against the Highland Gold Mines Company, said corporation, and its officers and directors.

It is charged in the bill of complaint that the defendant Crawford, who was the attorney and legal advisor of the company, conspired with defendants Diehl, Grabill and Sorrensen, officers and directors of the company, to fabricate false and fictitious claims against the company on which judgment was obtained; that the object and purpose of said defendants was to use the judgment as a means of obtaining title in themselves to the company s property.

Other fraudulent acts were also charged.

Upon the trial defendants Diehl and Grabill moved to dismiss as to them because the court did not have jurisdiction over them for the reason that they had not been sued in the district in which either of them resided or of

BRADY v. BERNARD & KITTINGER. 595

217 U. S. Statement., of the Case.

which they were residents or inhabitants, it appearing from the bill that they were citizens of Pennsylvania. The court sustained the motion.

Mr. Charles W. Fulton and Mr. Douglas W. Bailey for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

Per Curiam. Decree reversed with costs and cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Company, 177 U. S. 1; 18 Stat. 470, c. 137, § 8; Code of Oregon, §§ 5064, 300, 301.

BRADY v. BERNARD & KITTINGER.

appe al from , an d peti tio n fo r ce rt ior ar i to , th e

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

No. 501. Petition for certiorari and motion to dismiss submitted April 26,

1910.—Decided May 2, 1910.

An appeal from an adjudication in bankruptcy taken under § 25a of

the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 dismissed because taken too late.

Appe al from an adjudication in bankruptcy taken under § 25a of the Bankruptcy Act.

Appellee contended in this case that the appeal came too late as it was taken more than ten days after the order. Appellant contended that as he had filed a petition to set aside the order the time ran from denial of that order. The petition to set aside was not filed until more than ten days after the adjudication.

Mr. Norman Farrell, Jr., and Mr. Hill McAlister for appellants.

Mr. Edwin C. Brandenburg, Mr. Clarence A. Brandenburg, Mr. F. Walter Brandenburg, Mr. A. E. Wilson and Mr. James R. Duffin for appellees.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction and petition for writ of certiorari denied.

EX PARTE MORSE, PETITIONER.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

No. —, Original. Submitted May 2, 1910.—Decided May 16, 1910.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner was restrained under a judgment of sentence of imprisonment entered by a court without jurisdiction and in disregard of petitioner’s constitutional rights, denied without opinion.

Peti ti on er was tried, convicted and sentenced. He filed this petition alleging that his trial was not impartial, that special government agents were in charge of the jury, that one juror was mentally disqualified, that the court submitted the question of intent to deceive which was not in the indictment, and that the sentence was in excess of the term prescribed by the statute.

Mr. Martin W. Littleton for petitioner.

Per Curiam. Motion for leave to file petition denied.