The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1905-07-17
JUNCTION DISSOLVE AGAINST Mine AND ORGAN

courts Of the State Of West Virginia,
where the jurisdiction was unques-
toned, for such suit for the pur-
pose mentioned was then pending.
What the compliments intended to
do, and what they In fact did, was to
have the management of the coal
company declare that neither they
as officials thereof, nor the company
as corporation would institute and
prosecute the suit referred to, there
by providing as they supposed,
method by which the complainants'
who were stockholders and citizens
of the State of Pennsylvania, would
be able to sue for the purpose mem
toned in this. court. Such likely
would have been the result had the
effort been an honest endeavor to
further a sincere intention, and not
the simulated action of designing
mems who collusivefy formulated the
scheme, and prepared the answer to
the request that suit be brought, be-
fore the petition containing it had
been submitted for consideration Of
those whose action is requested. Il
is quite evident that it was the-plan
Of tho. compliments, and of some of
the directors of the Coal Company
collusively acting together for that
purpose, to make the situation fit the
conditions indicated by the terms Of
Equity Rule "a, and when this con
.nlusion has been reached, it follows
that any pretense of jurisdiction by
this court over this controversy has
disappeared. The refusal of their
request was the one thing they wish
ID, the granting of it would have
been the. one thing that would have
eircumvented their plans. Their
conduct was insincere, their effort
was pretended. and the action they
desired was not indicated by the re-
quest they submitted.
The question here involved is Of
great importance, including as it
docs the principles upon which in
many instances the Federal juris-
prudence is based. Where the right
to sustain a suit in this court de-
ponds upon the citizenship of the
parties, the positive requirement of
the law is that the litigants shall be
of different states. The
case made ~ tl,e bin is in fact
between tlls Pennsyl-
vanin Consolidated Goal Company
a corporation and citizens of the
State of w, st Virginia, and fs'ss de-
PENDANTS. Ha ygerty Noon, True and
others, all likewise citizens of that
State. The efforts of complainants.
citizens of the State of Pennsyl
vania. to produce the diversity o
necessary to sustain II"
controversy in their names, uttcr.v
fails to meet the requirements ind
Gated by the decision of the court
relating to Equity Rule "a, which
was adopted for the purpose of Civ
ing effect to the principles enunciat-
ed by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Halves v. Oakland>
1O4 u. s. $50. Tn this connection
see Huntington v. Palmer, 104 U. S.
4s2; Detroit V. Dean, 100 U. s: 5$7 ;
City of Quincy v. Steel 100 u y.
PAL.
.eBy virtue of the fifth section Of
the Act of Congress of March 3.
1851. c. 137-(18 St, pit. 3, p. 400
relating to efforts to impose upon
The courts of the United States, the
of cases not fairly be-
longing to them-fnding as I do
that this suit does not involve dis
pute properly within the jurisdic-
lion of this court, and that some Of
the parties to it have been eollusive-
lv Joined, for the purpose of creating
n case cognizible under said act--it
is my duty to proceed no further
with this case. An order will be
entered dissolving the restraining
order, and dismissing the bill"