30 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Op?nlon of tl? Court. ?09 U. & slmi]ar t? that of the first complaint. The complaint did not conform to the requirements of' Equity Ruie.94, relating to suits o,? this nature, in that it, failed to allege that the plain- tiff was a shareholder at the time of 'the transactions of which he complains, or that his shares had devolved on him shies by operation of law, or that the suit WaS not collusive, or the particulars of his efforts to procure action by the corporation defendant. The defendants then demurred separately to the bill and the defendant Hill subjoined to his demurrer an affi- davit denying every allegation in it tending to show wrongful conduct on his part. Thereafter the plaintiff moved to remand the cause to the sta?e court on the ground that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction over it. This motion was denied. The demurrer was snstained and the bill dismissed. The cor- reetnsss of the ruling on the demurr?r and the dismissal ?s not before us. The case comes here on direct appeal from the Circuit Court on the question of jurisdiction alone, certified in the following terms: "NQw, therefore, the court hereby certi- ties to ?he Supreme Court of the United States the question of jurisdiction which has arisen upon the aforesaid motio? to re- mand and the demurrers to the complaint, to wit: Whether or not the complainant's amended bill of complaint showed that there wa? such diversity of citizenship between the party com- plainant and the parties defendant in this cause as would be sufficient, under the provisions of the United States Revised Statutes to comer jurisdiction upon the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York of this cause, and whether this cause, as brought in the Supreme Court. of the State of New York, was one over which this court would have had original jurisdiction, and was therefore removable into this court." We consider nothing but the question of jurisdiction, and express no opinion upon the decision upon the demurrer which is not properly here. Schunk v. Moline, M?burn & ,?todd? C?.,. 147 U.S. 500; ?m?th v. McKay, 161 U.S. 355; Men, can Central Ra?hoay Co. v. Eckman, 187 U.S. 429; Hennessy v.
�
