East Tennessee, v. & G. Railroad v. Grayson
119 U.S. 240 (1886)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

East Tennessee, V. & G. Railroad v. Grayson, 119 U.S. 240 (1886)

East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad v. Grayson

Submitted November 8, 1886

Decided November 29, 1886

119 U.S. 240

Syllabus

A, a citizen of Alabama, filed a bill in equity in a court of Alabama against the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, a Corporation of Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, and the East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia

Page 119 U. S. 241

Railroad, a corporation of Tennessee and of Georgia. The bill alleged that complainant was a stockholder in the Memphis and Charleston Company, that a lease of the road of that company had been made to the other company for a term of years not yet expired, that the lease was not within the corporate power of either company, and that an arrangement had been made between the two companies, and was about to be carried into effect, for the surrender and cancellation of the lease on the payment by the lessor of a large sum of money to the lessee, which was to be raised by the sale of a large amount of new stock at a very low rate, and it prayed for an injunction to restrain the lessee from operating the road, and the lessor from paying the sum of money or any sum for the cancellation, and from issuing the new stock. On the petition of the lessee, the suit was removed to the circuit court of the United States on the ground that the lessee was a citizen of Tennessee and the complainant a citizen of Alabama, and that there was a controversy wholly between citizens of different states which could be fully determined between them. The circuit court, on motion, remanded the cause. This Court, on appeal, affirms that judgment.

This was an appeal from the judgment of a circuit court remanding a cause which had been removed from a state Court. This case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.