26 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Amount for App?llaut. ?09 U.S. shown to exist, the Circuit Court was wholly without iur? diction. The facts necessary to confer. jurisdiction on a United States court to entertain an action of .the nature of the one at bar when the diverse citizenship of the parties i? the sole ground of jurisdiction have been expressly laid down and defined in Equity Rule 94: The reasons which gave rise to the?promulgation of this rule and the abuses which it was intended to prevent are well known. The direct object and purpose of that rule was to pre- vent the courts of the United States from being overburdened with actions brought by stockholders of corporations, which, except for the diverse citizenship of the stockholder appear- ing as complainant, would have to b e brought in a ?tate court, of competent jurisdiction. Hawes v. Oak/and, 104 U.S. 450; U.S. 241. If the necessary jurisdictional facts required by Rule 94 do not appear, the corporation will be aligned as the party plain- tiff, and the question of jurisdiction determined as if the suit had been originally brought by it and not by a stockholder in its behalf. E/k/ns v. City o! Chicago, 119 Fed. Rep. 957; Keenmeter v. Ha?gerty, 139 Fed. Rep. 693; D/ck/nson v. Con- Fed. Pep. 821; Groel v. United Electric Co., 132 Fed'. Pep. 252. The allegations of the lfill clearl T d? not meet the require- ments of Rule 94; either as to the pl?dntiff being a stockholder at the time the cause of action arose, that he thereafter be- ck. me a stockholder by devolution of law, or as to the suit not being a collusive one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction of a cause of which it would not otherwise have cog- nizance. In these respects, therefore, there is no compliance wi?h the rule and the' case cannot be taken out of the applica- tion of the wholesome rule that for the purpose of determin- ing jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, the real
�
