New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-20
COLER SUIT DISMISSED.
FeSeral Court Has No Jurisdiction
in Case.
IN Case.

-,,a action recently begun In the r-,,,.s
s...es Circuit Court against Bird 6 co,.-
s---,s-iv Controller OF the City OF NeU-yo-l,
- 3 number Of other directors OF the Guard
= trust CO. by Levi Waller. BRADLEY w
IS and George Il. Roper. acting for ,hs-,-
- sad other shareholders OF the t-,,s- go
= WIS dismissed yesterday by Judge T.
80. who handed down an opinion sra,.,r-
:. motion made on Friday week by co,,nssl
-aseutinE the defence. that the bfll ~ corr
-,s,-t be dismissed for want OF iurssdir.,o-
re- court holds that in making the Guardian
--ust Company q defendant as well as a COM
-,sinant il places 8 citizen OF the same state
- the position Of both complainant and defend
s-t. This removes the federal tribunals juris-
s,-.f7r. the United States Circuit Court being
o-lv for the Trial Of causes at law and equity
,s.v-ee1 citizens CT separate States where -he
.-,or-t in dispute exceeds $1,000
me action fled in June last with an amended
-,-n,lairt or September - names in addition.
:, he three shareholders as ccmplasnan-s ,ha
.,rov-ins defendants. Bird s Coler. n Ross
.,nie-on William T. Balkan. Richard "
1o-es. r. William A Barber. George W. Fair
-sr6. Edgar :. Levey. Charles E. Levy. Rem
Ns-s Naver. Il A Metz. Thomas NJ AIuIrv
rvsvig Nissen. Leopold Stern and the Guard
.s- Trust Company The trust company. as
ssste6 was also made a party complainant.
n his opinion dsulissing TIE bill Judge "a
coulhe says
rfthe trust company. defendant. were aliv-As
mr. he s-ockhol6er comPlainauts there Womb
- citizens Cf the same state on both sides 81
-he controversy and this court would be with
--- jurisdiction. L is manifest from the nil
nat The company rightfU-y belongs 70 the com
-tainarts side OF the Controversy. but il is
-o-rea5e6 that the wholesome rule which alicus
-,s--ies according 20 interest does not apply TO
s-ockhOl6ers' acts against the corporation and
Other parties. founded on rights which may
properly 81 asserted by ire corporation.
A decision IS quoted by Judge Laconbe in
s.rpo-t o. this contention. The case at bar X
. sid does not come within the Saith Rule OF
rsuf-v. which provides that the bill OF com
-fsir+ must set forth IN particularly the ef-
.7--s q plaintiff 70 secure such action as ne
sss.--ss on the part OF the managing directors
- trustees and Of necessity CT the shareholders
s-6 the causes q his failure 10 obtain such &C
r;ou. L II be conceded that the plaintiff has set
forth wiki sufficient particularly his efforts 10
induce the directors 70 act and the cause Of his
ssru-e 10 secure such action By them. II thus
-io,-s-f-v his Efforts 10 secure action the part
a the shareholders. or al least 10 show some
ro9S reason why any such effort would be futile
IS fr~ instance. tlat majority q the stock
holders are hostile 20 con-painants' proposed &C
-for No aVe-r1eurS q this sort. however. are
s-urs f- the bin. and the cause is. therefore
~r- brought within the 44th Rule. except from
re general rule which sIgns parties according
- interest such alignment brings citizen Of
Nev-vo~k OF each SIDE Of the controversy and
leaves the court without jurisdiction The no
tior is therefore dismissed Tor lack Of Jur1s-
dic-iC-