Lindauer v. Compania Palomas De Terrenos Y. Ganados, Sociedad Anonimo

Decision Date04 December 1917
Docket Number4910.
Citation247 F. 428
PartiesLINDAUER et al. v. COMPANIA PALOMAS DE TERRENOS Y GANADOS, SOCIEDAD ANONIMO, et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Rehearing Denied January 28, 1918.

Walter D. Hawk, of Chicago, Ill., and A. B. Renehan, of Santa Fe N.M. (George A. Miller and Samuel S. Holmes, both of Chicago Ill., and E. R. Wright, of Santa Fe, N.M., on the brief), for appellants.

James R. Garfield, of Cleveland, Ohio, and D. J. Cable, of Lima Ohio (Francis C. Wilson, of Santa Fe, N.M., on the brief), for appellees.

Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and AMIDON and MUNGER, District Judges.

CARLAND Circuit Judge.

Appellees, corporations of the republic of Mexico, commenced this action in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico, against Walter D. Hawk, Samuel S. Holmes, citizens of Illinois, Sigmund Lindauer, Arthur A. Temke, citizens of New Mexico, Luis Huller, a citizen of the republic of Mexico, and the Northwestern Colonization & Improvement Company of Chihuahua, hereafter called the Northwestern Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New Mexico.

The complaint among other things alleged that appellees were the owners of 822,510 acres of land in the republic of Mexico, described by metes and bounds in the complaint, lying along the boundary line between the United States and said republic; that this land was formerly owned by Luis Huller, deceased, father of Luis Huller, one of the defendants; that Huller, Sr., caused the Northwestern Company to be incorporated under the laws of the territory of New Mexico on or about the 9th day of March, 1889; that said corporation continued to exist and still exists as a lawful corporation under the laws of the state of New Mexico; that Huller, Sr., conveyed the above-mentioned lands to said Northwestern Company in consideration of the issuance to him by said corporation of $600,000 in the bonds of said corporation, secured by a mortgage upon the land conveyed, in favor of the Mercantile Trust Company of New York, as trustee, and 499,991 shares of the stock of said corporation of the par value of $10 per share; that subsequently one John C. Sanders, a citizen of the state of Ohio, was substituted as trustee in the mortgage in place of the Trust Company; that during the month of April, 1902, said Sanders, trustee, entered suit in the Second civil court of the city of Mexico for the bondholders under said mortgage to recover the principal and interest evidenced by said bonds, and for a sale of the land described in the mortgage; that such proceedings were thereafter had in said suit that a final judgment and decree was entered therein, whereby the lands covered by said mortgage were sold, one parcel thereof to Compania Palomas de Terrenos y Ganados, Sociedad Anonimo, and the other to Compania de Dublan de Aguas y Colonization, Sociedad Anonimo, appellees herein; that, notwithstanding appellee's title to said lands, said defendants Hawk, Holmes, Temke, Lindauer, and Huller had conspired and confederated together for the purpose of making for and in behalf of said Huller, Carmen Huller de Niles, and Theresa Marie Huller, heirs of Luis Huller, deceased, and said Huller, as administrator of the estate of Luis Huller, deceased, a false and fraudulent claim to the effect that said heirs or the said administrator of the estate of the said Luis Huller, deceased, or some of them were at all times the owners of the stock and bonds of the said Northwestern Company, that the sale of the lands by virtue of the proceedings in the Second civil court of the city of Mexico, was a nullity and void, and that the Northwestern Company, and not appellees, was the owner of the lands and entitled to the possession thereof.

The complaint then alleged the commission of acts by the defendants, above named, whereby they represented and pretended that they were officers and directors of the Northwestern Company, and had pretended to hold a meeting of the directors and stockholders of said corporation at Deming, N.M., for the express purpose of clouding the title to plaintiff's land. The prayer of the complaint asked for a writ of injunction to be directed to the defendants Hawk, Holmes, Temke, Huller, and Lindauer, restraining them and each of them, their agents, servants, and employes, from in any manner acting or pretending to act for or in behalf of the Northwestern Company, and from committing as pretended officers, agents, stockholders, or directors of the said corporation any of the acts complained of in the complaint. This relief was granted as to Temke and Lindauer.

The appellees dismissed the action as to the defendant Luis Huller on objection being made that he was a citizen of the republic of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York Chase Nat Bank of City of New York v. Citizens Gas Co of Indianapolis Same v. Indianapolis Gas Co 8212 13
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 10 November 1941
    ...62 F. 498; Board of Trustees v. Blair, C.C., 70 F. 414; Allen-West Commission Co. v. Brashear, C.C., 176 F. 119; Lindauer v. Compania Palomas, etc., 8 Cir., 247 F. 428; De Graffenreid v. Yount-Lee Oil Co., 5 Cir., 30 F.2d 574. 2 In addition to the cases cited in the text, see Removal Cases,......
  • Brown v. Denver Omnibus & Cab Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 18 November 1918
    ... ... 795, 151 C.C.A. 645; Lindauer v ... Compania et al., 247 F. 428, 159 C.C.A ... ...
  • Iron Molders' Union Local No. 68 v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 6 November 1918
    ... ... 26, 29, 29 Sup.Ct. 9, 53 L.Ed. 74; Lindauer v ... Compania Palomas, etc. (C.C.A. 8) 247 F ... ...
  • Seeley v. Cornell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 14 March 1934
    ...v. Delaware Construction Co., 100 U. S. 457, 25 L. Ed. 593; Steele v. Culver, 211 U. S. 26, 29 S. Ct. 9, 53 L. Ed. 74; Lindauer v. Compania (C. C. A.) 247 F. 428. There is nothing in the case of Williams v. Crabb (C. C. A.) 117 F. 193, 203, 59 L. R. A. 425, contrary to this doctrine. The fa......
  • 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