Case: SCHULTZ v. DIEHL
Abbreviation: Schultz v. Diehl
Decision Date: 1910-04-25
Docket Number: No. 166
Citation: 217 U.S. 594
Volume: 217
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: SCHULTZ v. DIEHL.
Judges: 
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
SCHULTZ v. DIEHL.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.
No. 166.
Submitted by appellants April 22, 1910.
Decided April 25, 1910.
Under the .act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, the Circuit Court may have jurisdiction of an action brought by a resident of one State against a corporation organized .under the laws of another State and stockholders of that,corporation for the purpose of removing encumbrances from the property of the corporation in the District in which the suit is brought, even if some of the stockholders are not residents of the District in which they are sued. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1. •
The plaintiffs and appellants brought this case as minority stockholders of the Highland Gold Mines Company, a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, against the Highland Gold Mines Company,. said corporation, and its officers •and directors. . ,
It is charged in the bill of complaint that the defendant Crawford, who was the attorney and legal advisor of the company, conspired with defendants Diehl, Grabill and Sorrensen, officers and directors of the company, to fabricate false and fictitious claims against the company on, which judgment was obtained; that the object and purpose of said defendants was to use the judgment as a means of obtaining title in themselves to the company’s property. ’ 1
.Other fraudulent acts were also charged:
Upon the trial defendants Diehl and Grabill moved to dismiss as to them because the court did not have jurisdiction over them for the reason that they had not been sued in the district in which either of them resided or of which they were residents or inhabitants, it appearing from the bill that they were citizens of Pennsylvania. The court sustained the motion..
Mr. Charles W. Fulton and Mr. Douglas W. Bailey for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Decree reversed with costs and cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law. Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Company, 177 U. S. 1; 18 Stat. 470, c. 137, § 8; Code of Oregon, § 5064, 300, 301.