28 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. different States. As the parties are arranged the citizenship of plaintiff is different from that ef the defendants. The mere fact that the defendant corp?ation might be benefited by such a suit does not force its alignment with eompl?n?nt, un- less there is really no controversy between the complainant and the railroad company. See Detro/t v. Dean, 106 U.S. 537, and ca?es cited; and Dodge v. Woo/sey, 18 How. 331; Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626; Memphis v. Dean, 8 Wall. 64; Crr.e?nwood v. Freight Company, 105 U.S. 13; Qu/?y v. Steal, 120 U.S. 241. Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U.S. 579, is coneluCre of the case at bar, for in that case, as in this, the compl?J,?,mt based his fight to maintain the action on the ground that the de- fendant corporation is controlled by its co-defondant, who, it is alleged, used the corporation for his own advantage. New Jerse?l Central R. R. Co. v. M//Ls, 1t3 U.S. 249. See also East Tenn. &c. R.'R. Co. v. Grayson, 119 U.S. 240; Ch?ago v. M?J?s, 204 U.S. 321; Hawes v. Oak/and, 104 U.S. 450, 452. Complainant cannot, under Equity Rule 94, m?intalll the action; as a matter of fact he purchased his sto?k just before bringing suit, long after the alleged acts of which he com- plained, and he could not, and did not, allege that he was a stockholder at 'the time of their occurrence. This defect of title did not, as appellant argues, create any Federal jurisdic? ?ional question. Corbus v. Gol?..Minin?l Co., 187 U.S..455; lllinoiz Central R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 28, 34, 35. MR. ,]'US?ICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the court. -The plaintiff in error, a citizen of New York, brought this suit in equity in the Supreme Court of New York against the defendant railroad, a citizen of Minnesota, and the other de- fendant, its president, also a citizen of Minnesota. The com- plaint set forth in substance the following facts upon which the right to relief was claimed: The plaintiff was a stockholder in the defendant railroad at the time of the be?nnln of the
�
