Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/60

 34 OCTOBER TERM, 1207. Olinion of t2 Court. 209 U.S. 450, to be applicable in the decision of a stoekholder's suit of the kind now under consideration. Neither the rule nor the deeision from which it was derived deals with the question of the jurisdiction of the courts, but only prescribes the maner in which the jurisdiction shall be exercised. If a controversy of this general nature is brought in the Circuit Court and the necessary diversity of citizenship exists, but upon t pleadin or the proof it.appears that the plaintiff has not shown a case within the decision in Hawes v. Oak/and, or the rule of court declaratory of that decision, the bill should be dismil for want of equity and not for want of jurisdiction. The .dismid of the bill would not be the denial but the assertion and exercise of jurisdiction. So it was that in Hawes v. Oak/and the de- mutter was sustained and the bill dismissed, not for want of jurisdiction, but, in the words of the our (p. 462), "because 'the appellant shows no standing in a court of equity--no right. in.himself to prosecute this suit." The same order was.made U.S. 241.. This very question was considered by the court in Illinois Cnfral Railroad Company v. Ada, 180 U.S. 28, where it said, p. 34: "Jurisdiction is the right to put the wheels of iristies in motion and to proceed to the 6nl determination of a cause upon the pleadings and eidene6. It exists in the Circuit Courts of the United States under the express terms of the act of August 13, 1888, if the plaintiff be a citizen of one State, the defendant a citizen of another, if the amount in controversy exceed $2,000, and the defendant be properly served with process within the district. Excepting certain quaYjurisdictional facts, necessary to be averted in particular eases and immaterial here, these are the only facts requital to vest jurisdiction of the controversy in the Circuit Courts.. It' may undoubtedly be shown in defense that plaintiff has no right under the allegations of this bill or the facts of the case to bring suit, but that is no defeet of jurisdiction, but of title. It is as much so as f it were sought to dismiss an action of ejectment for want of j .urisdietion, by showing that the plaintiff

�