Crump v. Thurber

Decision Date04 May 1885
Citation115 U.S. 56,29 L.Ed. 328,5 S.Ct. 1154
PartiesCRUMP v. THURBER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

G. C. Wharton, for appellant.

E. More, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD. J.

This suit was commenced by the filing in the Louisville chancery court, in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on the twenty-sixth of November, 1880, of a petition in equity, by W. H. Crump against James Wilson, and the Southern Dairy Company, a Kentucky corporation. The substance of the petition was that Crump had, under a contract with Wilson, assisted him in selling rights under a patent which he controlled; that, by the terms of the contract, Wilson was to receive $12,000 for the right for Kentucky, and $8,000 for the right for Indiana, and all received above those sums for either state was to be divided equally between Crump and Wilson; that the rights for Kentucky and Indiana were disposed of to the Southern Dairy Company, and 1,000 shares of its capital stock, of $100 each, out of 2,000 shares, were issued to Wilson, in payment for the rights, of which he had sold 100 shares for $5,000; that he had received more in value than the $20,000; that he refused to give to Crump any part of the stock or of the money; that a large amount of the stock issued to Wilson still stood on the books of the corporation in his name; and that Crump was entitled to 300 shares thereof. The petition prayed that Crump be adjudged to own 300 shares of the stock; and that the corporation be ordered to cancel on its books the stock standing in the name of Wilson, to that extent, and to issue to Crump certificates for 300 shares.

The corporation was served with process. The petition was then amended by stating that no less than 250 shares of the stock still stood in the name of Wilson; and process on that was served on the corporation. It then filed an answer, stating that 250 shares of his stock stood, when the petition was filed, in the name of Wilson, on its books, and had not since been transferred thereon; that before the suit was brought one H. K. Thurber bought the 250 shares from Wilson, and received from him the certificates thereof, by indorsement and delivery, and still held and owned them, and he had notified the president of the corporation of that fact, and claimed the right to have the stock transferred into his own name; and that it was willing to obey the judgment of the court, but ought not to be ordered to cancel or transfer the stock, unless Thurber should be brought before the court to litigate with Crump the true ownership of the stoc . Crump replied to the answer of the corporation, and filed an amended petition, making Thurber a party to the suit, and praying the same relief as in his original petition. Wilson and Thurber were then each personally served with process in the city of New York. Thurber then came into the state court and filed a petition and a bond for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, and the state court made an order removing the cause, under the objection and exception of the plaintiff. The petition proceeded on the ground that Crump was a citizen of Kentucky and Thurber a citizen of New York, and that there was a controversy in the suit between them, which was wholly between citizens of different states, and could be fully determined between them. Nothing was said in the petition for removal about Wilson or the corporation.

Thurber then filed an answer in the circuit court, setting forth that he had, on the twenty-sixth of October, 1880, purchased the 250 shares from Wilson for value, and received from him the certificates therefor, three in number, issued by the corporation to and in the name of Wilson, with blank forms of assignment and power of attorney on the back, which Wilson signed, and delivered to Thurber with the certificates; that he was entitled to fill the blanks and surrender the certificates, and heve the shares transferred and new certificates issued to him by the corporation; and that he purchased the shares without any knowledge or information of any claim by Crump against Wilson. The answer prayed that the shares be decreed to be the property of Thurber and not of Crump, and that the corporation be ordered to cancel the certificates issued to Wilson, and to issue to Thurber new certificates in their place. There was a replication to this answer. Thurber also filed a cross-bill in the circuit court, making as a defendant only the corporation, but not Crump, setting forth himself as a citizen of New York, and the corporation as a citizen of Kentucky; and averring the facts as to his purchase of the stock from Wilson for value, and as to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Hough v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1907
    ... ... 70; ... Bellaire v. Railway Co., 146 U.S. 117, 13 S.Ct. 16, ... 36 L.Ed. 910; Life Ass'n v. Farmer, 77 F. 929, ... 23 C. C. A. 574; Thurber v. Miller, 67 F. 371, 14 C ... C. A. 432. There was no proof of fraud in this case. The ... defendant, who petitioned for a removal, simply ... Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U.S. 138, 5 S.Ct. 807, ... 29 L.Ed. 114; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U.S. 41, 5 S.Ct ... 1034, 1161, 29 L.Ed. 331; Crump v. Thurber, 115 U.S ... 56, 5 S.Ct. 1154, 29 L.Ed. 328; Starin v. New York, ... 115 U.S. 248, 6 S.Ct. 28, 29 L.Ed. 388; Sloane v ... Anderson, ... ...
  • State ex rel. Harwood v. Sartorius
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1946
    ... ... St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co. v ... Wilson, 114 U.S. 60, 29 L.Ed. 66; Muellhaupt v ... Joseph A. Strawbridge Est. Co., 298 P. 189; Crump v ... Thurber, 115 U.S. 56, 29 L.Ed. 328; Bivens v ... Hull, 145 P. 694; H.M. Rowe Co. v. Rowe, 141 A ... 334; 18 C.J.S. 708, sec. 252 ... ...
  • Kelley v. Queeney
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • November 17, 1941
    ...defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff. Blake v. McKim, 103 U.S. 336, 26 L.Ed. 563; Crump v. Thurber, 115 U.S. 56, 5 S.Ct. 1154, 29 L.Ed. 328; Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U.S. 192, 14 S.Ct. 835, 38 L.Ed. 685; People of State of Illinois, etc., v. Boyer, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 894, ......
  • Regis v. United Drug Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 28, 1910
    ... ... v. Wilson, 114 U.S. 60, 5 Sup.Ct. 738, 29 L.Ed. 66; ... Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U.S. 138, 5 Sup.Ct ... 807, 29 L.Ed. 114; Crump v. Thurber, 115 U.S. 56, 5 ... Sup.Ct. 1154, 29 L.Ed. 328; Coney v. Winchell 116 ... U.S. 227, 6 Sup.Ct. 366, 29 L.Ed. 610; Fidelity Ins. Co ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT