Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/52

 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

�