Higgins v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1900
• Citation: 99 F. 640
• Parties: HIGGINS et al. v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

99 F. 640

HIGGINS et al. v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

January 4, 1900

Henry Crawford and Knox & Reed, for complainants.

Johns McCleave, for Baltimore & O. R. Co.

Thomas Herriott, for Pittsburgh & W. Ry. Co.

BUFFINGTON District Judge.

This bill was filed in the state court by citizens of New York against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a corporation of Maryland, and the Pittsburgh & Western Railway Company, a corporation of Pennsylvania. Both complainants and the Baltimore Company are stockholders of the Pittsburgh Company the Baltimore Company owning the majority of such stock. After presenting to the state court a bond and petition for removal, the Baltimore Company filed a copy of the record in this court. Complainants now move to remand. This motion is resisted by the Baltimore Company on the ground the bill involves 'a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them. ' If such be the fact, it follows this court has jurisdiction, the case was, under the provisions of section 2, Act Aug. 13, 1888, rightfully removed, and the present motion should be denied. It is contended by the Baltimore Company that the question in this bill, to wit, the ownership of certain stock in the Pittsburgh Company, is one wholly and solely between it and the complainants, and that plenary relief, to the full extent prayed in the bill, can be afforded complainants by a decree against the Baltimore Company alone, without reference to the Pittsburgh Company; that the latter company, while made a party respondent, is a mere formal one, and is not indispensable to the relief sought by a decree against the Baltimore Company. It is, of course, well settled that the jurisdiction of the federal courts cannot be defeated by the joinder of mere nominal parties. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 5 L.Ed. 651; Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. 99, 1 Sup.Ct. 3, 27 L.Ed. 69; and cases cited in Wilson v. Oswego Tp., 151 U.S. 64, 14 Sup.Ct. 259 38 L.Ed. 70. The bill discloses that a receiver for the Pittsburgh Company has been appointed by this court. The fact that our receiver was not made a party suggests the drawers of this bill not in view any relief or decree which would affect the property or corporate rights of that company. Indeed, the bill shows the complaint is wholly against the Baltimore Company, and the...