Chicago v. Mills
204 U.S. 321 (1907)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago v. Mills, 204 U.S. 321 (1907)

Chicago v. Mills

No. 286

Submitted December 21, 1906

Decided February 4, 1907

204 U.S. 321

Syllabus

Although the certificate of the circuit court may not state exactly how the jurisdictional question certified arose, this Court can ascertain it from the record, together with the opinion of the court below made a part thereof.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court must be determined with reference to the attitude of the case at the date of the filing of the bill.

When a citizen of one state has a cause of action against a citizen of another state which he may lawfully prosecute in a federal court, his motive in preferring a federal tribunal, in the absence of fraud and collusion, is immaterial.

If it does not appear that there was any collusion within the meaning of the ninety-fourth rule in equity for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, not otherwise existing, on the circuit court of the United States, that court does not lose its jurisdiction of a suit brought by a nonresident stockholder, after request to and refusal by the corporation, to enjoin

Page 204 U. S. 322

the enforcement of an ordinance against the corporation, and of which the court would not have had jurisdiction had the corporation been complainant, because subsequent events make it to the interest of the corporation and its officer to make common cause with the complainant stockholder. An admission by complainant that he expected the action to be brought in the United States court does not necessarily show collusion to confer jurisdiction.

In this case, held on the facts that no collusion between the stockholder bringing the suit and the corporation refusing to bring it was shown that deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction thereover.

143 F. 430 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 204 U. S. 325

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.