Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/58

 32 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Curt. 9 U. really places them, and then may determine the jurdictional question in iew of this alignment. P,rnova/Ca,z, 100 U.S. 457; Pac/fic Ra//road v. Ketchurn, 101 U.S. 289; Hartor v. Ker- U.S. 56, 63; Merchants' Cotton Press Co. v. lnsurac Cornpan U.S. 527, 532. If this rule should be applied it would leave the parties here where the pleader has arranged them. It would doubtless be for the fineil interest of the defendant railroad that the plaintiff should prevail. But that is not enough. Both defendants unite,' as sufficiently appears by the petition and other proceedings, in resisting the plaintiff's claim of illegality and fraud. They are 11eged to have angged in the same illegal and fraudulent conduct, and the injury alleged to hve been accomplished by their joint ction. The plaintiff's controversy is with both, and both are rightfully and neeesrily made defendants, and neither ea, for juris- dictional purposes, be regarded otherwise than as a defendant. Datwnport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626; The Cntra/Rag/road Corn- pan/v. M///s, 113 .U.S. 249;  Rag/road v. Grayon, 119 U.S. 240; Doctor v. Harr/ngton, 196 U.S. 579; Grod v. United El- tric Co., 132 Fed. Rep. 22 and see Chicago v. M, 204-U. S. 321. The case of Doctor v. Harrington is preeizely in point on this branch of the case, and is concluve. In tJt case the plaintiffs, stockholders in a corporation, brought an ction in the Circuit Court inst the corporation and I-hgrington, another stockholder, "who directed the management of affsrs of the corporation, dictated its policy, and selected directors." It was alleged thet Hrington franduleat, ly caused the corporation to make its promissory note without con4dera- ' tion, obtained a judgment on the note, and old, oa execution, for much less than their real viue, the asets f the corpora- tion to persons acting for hi benefit. On the faee of the plead- ings there was the necessary diversity of eitinship, but it wa insisted that the corporation, becauze its interest ws the me as that of the plaintiff, should be reg-led as a plz;mtiff.

�