�ENNER ?. GREAT NORTHEIt? RAILWAY. ? U.S. Ol?im of t? Com?. The court below so aligne d the corporation defendaat, and, az that destroyed the diversity of citizenship, dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. This court reversed the decree, say- ing, p. 587: "The ultimate interest of the corporation made defendant may be the same as that of the stockholder made plaintiff, but the corporation may be ondcr a control ant?go- uiztic, and made to act in a way detrimental to his fights. In other words, his interests, and the interests of the corporation, may be made subservient to some illegal purpcoe. H a contro- versy hence arise, and the other conditions of jurisdiction exist, it. can be litigated in a Federal court." There was therefore in the case at bar the diversity of citizenship which confers jurisdiction. Second. Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction of the sub- jeer matter of the litigation? It has already been shown that the plaintiff in his petition did not bring this case within the terms of Equity Rule 94, which is printed in the margini It may be noted that the plaintiff in Doctor v. Harr/ngton, ?upra complied with the requirements of the rule. It is argued that a compliane with that rule is essential to the jurisdiction, and that a controversy of the general nature contemplated by the rule is beyond the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, unless the plaintiff shows-the existence of all the facts which the rule makes indispensable to his success in the suit. But' this argu- ment overlooks the purpose and nature of the ride. The rule' s?mply expre?es the principles which this court, after a review of the authorities, had declared in Hatve. s.v. Oak/and, 104 U.S. l Every bill brought by one or more.stockholders in a corporation, against the corporation and other parties, founded on right? which may he properly a?erted by the corporation, must be ve?-ified by oath, and must contain an allegation that the plaintiff wes a shareholder at the time of the trans- action of which he complains, or that his share had devolved on him since by operation of law; and that the suit is not a oolinslve one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction of a case of which it would not other- wi? have cognizance. It must also set forth with particularity the etfort? of the plaintiff to secure such action as he de?irss on the part of the in S directore or trustees, and, if necessary, of the shareholders, and the causes of hi? failu? to obtain such aciion.
�
