St Louis Ry Co v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 23 March 1885 |
| Citation | 114 U.S. 60,29 L.Ed. 66,5 S.Ct. 738 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. and others v. WILSON. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of the United States remanding a suit to the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, from which it had been removed upon a petition filed under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, (18 St. 470.) The suit was in equity, and brought by William C. Wilson, the appellee, a citizen of Missouri, against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, a Missouri corporation, and Jesse Seligman and James Seligman, citizens of New York, to compel the company to transfer to Wilson on its books certain shares of its capital stock standing in the name of the Seligmans, and to issue to him certificates therefor. The petition states that Wilson purchased the stock at a sale under an execution issued upon a judgment in his favor and against the Seligmans, and that on the nineteenth of December, 1883, he exhibited to the company his certificate of purchase, and demanded that the company cause his name 'to be entered on the stock books of said corporation as the owner of said shares of said capital stock, * * * and further duly notified said corporation to pay to him all dividends hat might thereafter be declared and payable to and on said stock;' but that the company refused so to do. The prayer is for a transfer of the stock, the cancellation of the certificates to the Seligmans, the issue of new certificates and payment of dividends to Wilson, and an injunction prohibiting the Seligmans from acting as stockholders.
The company and the Seligmans filed separate answers, but setting up substantially the same defense, to-wit, that the stock, though standing in the names of the Seligmans, did not in fact belong to them when the execution was levied, or when the sale to Wilson was made, because they had long before that time sold and transferred their certificates to other parties for value, who were the real holders and owners of the stock, though not transferred to them on the books. The Seligmans in their answer deny the validity of the judgment against them, for the reason that it was rendered in a suit to which they were not parties.
The petition for removal was presented by the Seligmans alone, and, after stating the citizenship of the parties, proceeds as follows: 'That there is in said suit a controversy wholly between citizens of different states, which can be fully determined as between them without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Harwood v. Sartorius
... ... action. Such judicial orders could operate, if at all, upon ... the corporation alone. 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 ... ...
-
Tolbert v. Jackson, 8877.
...v. Ide, 114 U.S. 52, 5 S.Ct. 735, 29 L.Ed. 63; Putnam v. Ingraham, 114 U.S. 57, 5 S.Ct. 746, 29 L.Ed. 65; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 114 U.S. 60, 5 S.Ct. 738, 29 L.Ed. 66; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U.S. 41, 5 S.Ct. 1034, 1161, 29 L.Ed. 331; Starin v. New York, 115 U.S. 248, 6 S.Ct. 28, 2......
-
Regis v. United Drug Co.
... ... said controversy can be had as between your petitioner and ... the plaintiffs aforesaid, without the presence of the said ... defendant Louis K. Liggett. That this is a suit brought by ... the said plaintiffs to enjoin an alleged infringement of an ... alleged trade-mark, and for an ... 456, ... 28 L.Ed. 949; Sully v. Drennan, 113 U.S. 287, 5 ... Sup.Ct. 453, 28 L.Ed. 1007; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry ... 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 ... ...
-
Kearney v. Dollar
...plaintiff seeking a remand cites and relies on Crump v. Thurber, 115 U.S. 56, 5 S.Ct. 1154, 29 L.Ed. 328; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 114 U.S. 60, 5 S. Ct. 738, 29 L.Ed. 66; and Patterson v. Farmington St. Ry. Co., C.C., 111 F. The case of Crump v. Thurber is of much importance in ......