or trustees of the corporation which is beyond the authority conferred on them by their charter or other source of organization; or such a fraudulent transaction completed or contemplated by the acting managers, in connection with some other party, or among themselves, or with other shareholders, as will result in serious injury to the corporation, or to the interests of the other shareholders; or where the board of directors, or a majority of them, are acting for their own interest, in a manner destructive of the corporation itself, or of the rights of the other shareholders; or where the majority of shareholders themselves are oppressively and illegally pursuing a course in the name of the corporation which is in violation of the rights of the other shareholders, and which can only be restrained by the aid of a court of equity. Possibly other cases may arise in which, to prevent irremediable injury or a total failure of justice, the court would be justified in exercising its powers; but the foregoing may be regarded as an outline of the principles which govern this class of cases. But in addition to the existence of grievances which call for this kind of relief, it is equally important that before the shareholder is permitted in his own name to institute and conduct a litigation which usually belongs to the corporation, he should show to the satisfaction of the court that he has exhausted all the means within his reach to obtain, within the corporation itself, the redress of his grievances, or action in conformity to his wishes. He must make an earnest, not a simulated effort with the managing body of the corporation to induce remedial action on their part, and this must be made apparent to the court. If time permits, or has permitted, he must show, if he fails with the directors, that he has made an honest effort to obtain action by the stockholders as a body, in the matter of which he complains. And he must show a case, if this is not done, where it could not be done or it was not reasonable to require it." 52 Analogous rules regulate a suit by a stockholder to set aside a contract by the corporation as beyond the powers conferred in its charter.53 62 Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, 460, 461; per Miller, J. See also Huntington v. Palmer, 104 U. S. 482; Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13; Detroit v. Dean, 106 U. S. 537; Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241; County of Tazewell v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 12 Fed. R. 752. See also Equity Rule 94, and infra, §§ 76, 87, 207. 53 Dimpfell v. Ohio & Mississippi R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 209; Tazewell v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 12 Fed. R. 752; Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13. Where a stockholder filed a bill against the corporation, the directors, and another stockholder, charging that the individual defendants had entered into a conspiracy to do an unlawful and fraudulent act, in furtherance of their individual interests, which would destroy or seriously impair the value of the property of the corporation; that the individual defendants held among themselves seven-tenths of the stock, and had procured a vote of the stockholders authorizing the corporation to carry out the project, and prayed an injunction to prevent this, the bill was held good on demurrer, although it showed no previous effort to obtain redress, from the directors or stockholders, when no outsider was made a party defendant.54 It has been said that a court of equity has no power to seize a man's property, and through its officers complete a bridge in pursuance of a contract which he has made.55 Nor is it a sufficient ground for the interference of a court of equity that the evidence in a cause is voluminous and tedious.56 § 13. Federal Courts which have Jurisdiction in Equity. The equitable jurisdiction of the Federal courts, from which category the courts of the Territories and of the District of Columbia are here excluded, is in the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Circuit Courts, the District Courts, the Court of Claims, and the Court of Private Land Claims. § 14. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.-The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction both at law and equity in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State is a party. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over controversies to which a State is a party is exclusive, except as regards controversies between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States.2 In suits to which a State is a party the practice in equity is followed. The Supreme Court has exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits 54 Barr v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co., 40 Fed. R. 412. 55 Texas & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Rust, 17 Fed. R. 275. 56 Bowen v. Chase, 94 U. S. 812, 824. § 13. See Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434. § 14. Const. art. iii. 3 Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall, 402; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 266. brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul is a party.* A State may file a bill against another State to settle and establish a disputed boundary. In such a suit the United States has an interest in the controversy, and the attorney-general on his application may intervene and appear on behalf of the United States and adduce proofs and be heard in argument without making the United States a party in the technical sense of the term; but he has no right to interfere in the pleading or evidence or admissions of either of the States; and in such a suit the judgment cannot be either for or against the United States.6 Written authority from the governor of a State is sufficient to authorize a suit on behalf of the State. In a suit by a State against another State the service of a subpoena sixty days before the return day is sufficient.8 Service should be made on both the governor and the attorney-general. In one case a subpoena served upon the governor by leaving a copy at his house and there showing the original to the secretary of state, was held sufficient.10 The filing of a pleading by the attorney-general of a State who has been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States is an appearance on behalf of such State." The rules concerning the time for pleading in suits between individuals do not apply to suits between the different States. 12 The State of Massachusetts was allowed to answer an amended bill of the State of Rhode Island one year after the filing of such amended bill.13 If the State fail to appear, or if the State withdraw its appearance, no coercive measures will be taken to compel its appear 4 U. S. R. S. § 687. 5 State of New Jersey v. State of New York, 3 Peters, 461; s. c. 5 Peters, 284; 8. c. 6 Peters, 323; Massachusetts r. Rhode Island, 12 Peters, 755; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Peters, 233; s. c. 4 How. 591; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39; Missouri v. Iowa, 10 How. 1; Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 395. 6 Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478. 8 New Jersey v. New York, 6 Peters, 323. 9 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419; Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 320; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Peters, 461; s. c. 5 Peters, 284; Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66. 10 Huger v. South Carolina, 3 Dallas, 339. 11 State of New Jersey v. State of New York, 6 Peters, 623. 12 State of Rhode Island v. State of Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23. 18 State of Rhode Island v. State of Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23. ance, but the complainant may be allowed to proceed ex parte.14 A State cannot maintain a bill in equity to protect a purely political right.15 A State cannot obtain an order or judgment compelling the governor of another State to return a fugitive from labor or justice.16 In a suit to settle a disputed boundary, the most appropriate mode of proceeding is by bill and cross-bill.17 A State cannot sue one of its own citizens in the Supreme Court of the United States.16 The allegation that a defendant corporation is "a body politic in the law of and doing business in the State of California" is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation, and is insufficient to show that the defendant is not a Pennsylvania corporation.19 A State cannot sue another State to collect bonds and coupons of the defendant which have been assigned to the plaintiff by its own citizens in order that it may collect them and pay the proceeds to the assignors.20 A suit by a State to collect a judgment for penalties obtained in one of its own courts against a foreign corporation cannot be maintained in the Supreme Court of the United States.21 A State may sue for an injunction against the collection by citizens of other States of certain bonds of the United States which are the property of such State, and for the delivery to it of such bonds, and for a declaration that the contract under which the defendants claim a title to such bonds is void.22 A State may maintain a bill against citizens of other States to enforce its title to a railroad.23 The fact that a State is a stockholder in a corporation by or against which a suit is brought does not make the State a party to such suit.24 The appellate jurisdiction of the in the final chapter of this work. jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has 14 State of Massachusetts v. State of Rhode Island, 12 Peters, 755; Oswald v. New York, 2 Dallas, 415; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419. 15 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. 16 Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Den nison, 24 How. 66. 17 Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660. Supreme Court is explained Incidental to such appellate power in certain limited cases 20 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76. 21 Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U. S. 265. 22 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 741-743. 23 State of Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667. 24 The Bank of the United States v. 18 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 The Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. to issue writs of prohibition,25 mandamus, habeas corpus, scire facias, and other writs.28 § 14 a. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. There are nine Circuit Courts of Appeal, one in each circuit. Their jurisdiction is exclusively appellate, and will be explained in the concluding chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, they have the power to issue writs of scire facias and all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.2 § 15. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States. The Circuit Courts of the United States have original cognizance, concurrently with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners; suits in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value aforesaid; or a controversy between citizens of the same State, claiming land under grants of different States, or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid:1 and, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof against national banks, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank; 2 and all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, of any right, privilege, or immunity, secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, whether 25 U.S. R. S. § 688. See infra, §§ 361, 362. 26 U. S. R. S. § 688. See infra, §§ 361, 363, 364. 27 U. S. R. S. § 751. See infra, §§ 366, 367, 368. 29 U.S. R.S. §688. See infra,§§ 361, 365. § 14 a. 1 26 St. at L. 829, § 12. 2 U. S. R. S. § 716; 26 St. at L. 829, § 12. See infra, §§ 361--368. § 15.124 St. at L. ch. 373, p. 552. 2 24 St. at L. ch. 373, § 4, p. 552. See Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209; Armstrong v. Trautmann, 36 Fed. R. 275; McConville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277. |