Empire Coal & Transp. Co. v. Empire Coal & Min. Co., 150 U.S. 159 (1893)
U.S. Supreme CourtEmpire Coal & Transp. Co. v. Empire Coal & Min. Co., 150 U.S. 159 (1893)
Empire Coal and Transportation Company
v. Empire Coal and Mining Company
Submitted October 25, 1893
Decided November 6, 1893
150 U.S. 159
A bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States in Tennessee, by a corporation organized under the laws of the Kentucky, against another company described as a corporation organized under the laws of that state and having its principal office in the district in which the suit was brought, and against five individuals, citizens of a county within that district, prayed "that the parties named as defendants be made such," and for a reconveyance and an account of property of the plaintiff, alleged to have been fraudulently caused by the individual defendants to be conveyed to the defendant corporation, and to have been wasted and injured by all the defendants. The individual defendants demurred for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff thereupon, by leave of court, filed an amended bill, which "refers to the original bill and its prayer, and makes the same a part hereof, as if set out herein in haec verba," and further alleged that the individual defendants, in pursuance of their fraudulent scheme, pretended to procure from the State of Kentucky a charter under the came of the company "which is the same corporation mentioned in the original bill," and caused the plaintiff's property to be conveyed "to said pretended corporation," but this company was never lawfully organized, and the individual defendants controlled it and were doing business as a partnership under its name, and prayed that the parties defendants to the original bill be made defendants to this amended bill, and that the individual defendants be made defendants as partners under the name of the company, and be made to account personally and individually. Held that this company, as a corporation of Kentucky, was a party defendant to the amended bill of the plaintiff, likewise a Kentucky corporation, and that the amended bill must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The case is stated in the opinion.