The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-16

illness and sick headache.
plainant, the State of South Dakota,
AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL HOLDERS
of all similar bonds and we think tho
Bill Answer of the representative of
the individual bondholders, and Proofs
show that the suit is by or on behalf of,
Notwithstanding the name of the Com
plainant State and PAYING HER
FEE IN BONDS-to collect the bonds re-
tanned by them. In either event the suit
is forbidden by the Eleventh Amend
ment
First as to the Bill
Paragraphs III and V allege the own
ership by the State of North Carolina of
80. 900 shares Of stock in the North Caro-
lima Railroad Company of the par value
of So, 000, 900, and the execution of a
statutory second mortgage upon such an
amount of the States stock as should
equal the par of the bonds issued under
the act mentioned 'for the security of
the bonds held by your orator AND OF
ALL OTHER BONDS OF THE SAME
ISSUE" Paragraph XII alleges that
complainant is entitled to pay off the
first mortgage bonds, or for sale of so
many shares thereof as may be required
to pay off and discharge the FIRST AND
SECOND MORTGAGES,-par XIII
alleges that the rights of complainant
cannot be fully administered without the
presence before the court of the holders
of the second mortgage bonds, the mat
ters to be herein determined being of in
terest general and common to all of said
bondholders," and, as they are very num-
erous, Charles Salter is made party as
representative of the class,-and the
Prayer of the Bill asks that the number
and amounts of the first and second
mortgage bonds be ascertained and that
sufficient number of the shares of the
States stock be sold TO pay off and his
charge all the FIRST AND SECOND
MORTGAGE BONDS OUTSTANDING!
Charles Salter, the representative of
the individual holders, is not joined as
| accompaniment, but is made defendant;
however, there is no allegation that he
declined to join plaintiff and his Answer
and the Brief of his counsel show that
he is not anxious to join in the relief.
II is manifest that, if we are to look
at things and not at names, at substance
and not at forms, this suit presents a
controversy between the holders OF all
second mortgage bonds, including South
| Dakota and Charles Salter, representing
| individual bondholders, as compliments
against the State of North Carolina and
Simon Rothschild as defendant.
Under the Judiciary Acts comforting
| Jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts of
the United States "of all suits
in which there shall be a CONTROVERSY
between citizens of different States,
| the court, in order to ascertain whether
| 1. la
TROVERSY is between citizens of diff
| ferent States-rearranges the parties ac-
cording to their real interest in the con-
troversy. So, when the Constitution con-
fers the limited and exceptional jurisdic-
ton upon this court of controversies be-
| tween two or more States the court
| ought to look beyond the forms used BY
the pleader to the facts, in order to as
certain between whom the controversy
really exists, and if necessary, rearrange
the parties.
! 1t is, however, not necessary to rear
range the parties in order to show that
this suit is by, or for the beneht o.
Charles Sal.er.
In Blackjack v Small, 127 L, S. 50
Jacob Small a fitiznl of the State OF
South Carolina, executed bond &c
Blackjack, for the sum of $10,600, mort
gage TO secure the same upon certain
property in said State.
Blackjack assigned and transferred fol-
value the bond to Alex Robertson. il
trust for the three children of Blackjack
Emma Jane Blackjack, Mary Blackjack
and Helen Robertson Blackjack. Small
pretended to pay the bond and mortgage
to Robertson in the notes of the Confed
crate State and Robertson satisfied th'
mortgage of record and delivered up the
} bond to Small
Two of the children of Blackjack
Emma Jane and Mary, being citizens an'
residents of the State of Georgia
T brought a bill in equity in the Circui
| Court of the United States against Small
citizen of South Carolina, Robertson
citizen of North Carolina and Helel
J Robertson Blackjack. citizen Of Sout1
Carolina, for the purpose of annullin
the payment of the bond in Confederat
notes, the satisfaction of the mortgage
| and for the establishment and fore
closure of the said mortgage lien.
Small interposed a plea to the juTis1ic
ton because the plaintiff. as we'll q
himself were citizens of South CAROLYN
. when the bill was filed. The plea wa
{ over-ruled Small answered as did ais
Robertson. The defendant Helen Robert
son Blackjack put in an answer admittn
T. the allegations of the bill and general
D | joined with the plaintiffs in the praye
for relief.