Wilson v. St Louis & S. F. R. Co.

• Citation: 22 F. 3
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Decision Date: 25 September 1884
• Parties: WILSON v. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO. and others. [1]

22 F. 3

WILSON v. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO. and others. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

September 25, 1884

Jas. S Botsford, for plaintiff.

Jas. O Broadhead and John O'Day, for defendants.

MILLER C.J., (orally.)

The case of Wilson v. The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company and the Seligmans, submitted to us yesterday, on a motion to remand, was brought in the state courts and removed here. The question is presented in this manner: Wilson, who had recovered a judgment against the Memphis, Carthage &amp Northwestern Railroad Company, had an execution returned 'no property found,' and then took proceedings under the law of Missouri concerning such cases to subject the stockholders to personal liability, and in those proceedings he obtained an order against the Seligmans, with an execution issued against them for some twenty odd thousand dollars. Under that execution the sheriff levied upon and sold certain stock standing in their names on the books of the St. Louis &amp San Francisco Railroad Company, and gave the usual certificates of sale. Mr. Wilson, finding that certificate unavailable, because the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company would not recognize his right in the premises, filed this petition in the state court in the nature of a bill in chancery to compel the railroad company to acknowledge his interest in the stock, to have it registered on their books in his name, and to permit him to receive dividends, vote, and otherwise exercise the functions of a stockholder in that company. He also made the Seligmans parties, on the ground that the stock stood in their names on the books of the company, and averring that he had acquired their interest, and in that state of case the Seligmans filed their answer. In this they stated that they did not own the stock at the time the judgment was rendered against them, nor at the time of the sale to Wilson, but had parted with it, and that the certificates were then, and ever since had been, in the hands of persons to whom they sold, whose names they do not give; that it was sold in the ordinary business way, by indorsement with blank power of attorney; and that they do not know where it is; at all events, they assert very roundly that they have no interest in the stock itself, although it stood in their names on the books at the time of filing the answer of the railroad company.

Application was made by Seligman, as a citizen of New York, on the ground of his citizenship in that state, to transfer the case to this court, and it was done, by order of the state court. It is now moved to remand it on the ground that it was not a removable cause, and the question that is presented is rather a question of fact than any needed new construction of the law on the subject of removal, for the courts have decided-- and it has been decided frequently, so that the doctrine must be pretty well established at this time-- that if a non-resident party has an interest in a...