dence the defendants below objected on the ground that it was no part of the certificate, which objection was overruled, and under instructions of the court verdict was rendered for the plaintiff below. Exceptions had been duly taken to the ruling of the court, and the case was brought up on writ of error to the supreme court, where it was held that "two copies of the book sought to be copyrighted is an essential condition of a proprietor's right, and such deposit must be proved in some way in an action for infringement;" and that the evidence offered and objected to was incompetent for any purpose in the case, and that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. Jurisdiction. UNITED STATES tl. McBRATNEY, a case decided in the supreme court of the United States at the October term, 1881, was taken up upon certificate of division of opinion, from the circuit court for the district of Colorado, where defendant, having been indicted and convicted of murder within the boundaries of the Ute reservation in that district, moved in arrest of judgment for want of jurisdiction, the indictment not alleging that either the accused or the deceased was an Indian; and the certificate stating that at the trial it that both were white men, it was held, (Jray, J.: The circuit court l)f the United States for the district of Colorado has no jurisdiction of an indictment against a white man for the murder of a white man within the Ute reservation in the state of Colorado. 'rhe Attorney General, for the United States. Browne & Pntnam, for defendant. The cases cited in the opinion were: U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. 567; Bates v. Chtrk, 95 U. S. 204; U. S. v. Ward, 1 Wool. 17; Case of the Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616; Case of the Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; U. S. v. Ciana, 1 McLean, 254; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509; Beatson v.Skene, 5 Hurl. &; N. 838; Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, L. R. 8 Q. B. 255.
DANNMEYEB V. COLEMAN. DANNMEYEB v. COLEMAN and others.
(Oircuit Court, D. Oalifornia.
April 3, 1882.)
SUIT BY STOCKHOLDER-CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO RIGHT TO SUB.
Where a stockholder of a corporation brings a bill in equity for an account· ing, and for equitable relief in his own behalf and in behalf of the other stockholders, to vindicate their rights, he must not only state the grievances necessary to entitle him to the relief sought, but he must also show to the satisfaction of the court that he himself, and not another person, has made an earnest and not a simulated effort to induce remedial action on the part of the managing body of the corporation, or that he has made an honest effort to obtain action by the stockholders as a body in the matter of which he complains.
2. SAME-REQUISITES OF VERIFmD COMPLAINT. His efforts in this direction must be stated particularly, and he must state that he was a stockholder at the time of the transactions of wllich he complains, or that his shares have devolved on him by the operation of law, and that the suit is not collusive, in order to confer jurisdiction on the United States courts, which statements should be verified by affidavit. S. SAME-ACTION BARRED BY STATUTE. Where, by the law of the state where suit is brought, the statute of limitations applies to all causes of action, equitable as well as legal, and under such law an action for relief on the ground of fraud is barred in three years, the cause of action not being deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the facts constituting the fraud, it must be averred that the facts were not discov. ered until within three years.
4. l:!AME-MuLTIPLICrry OF SUITS.
The question whether shareholders of single shares can bring suits on their own behalf and on behalf of all the other shareholders for the same grievances and for an accounting of the same transactions, suggested but not decided.
H. G. Siebe1'st, for complainant. Hall McAllister and Geo. R. Wells, for certain defendants. S. Heydenfeldt, for Consolidated Virginia Mining Company. SAWYER, C. J. The complainant, a citizen of Germany, and the owner of 100 of the 540,000 shares of the capital stock of the Consolidated Vir. ginia Mining Company, a mining corporation organized under the laws of the state of California, filed his bill in equity, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other stockholders of the Consolidated Virginia Mining Company, against James V. Coleman and James C. Flood, executors of W. S, O'Brien, deceased; the Nevada Bank, John W. Mackay, James G. Fair, James C. Flood, the Pacific Mill & Mining Company, the Pacific Wood, Lumber & Flume Company, the Pacific Refinery & Bullion Exchange, and the Consolidated Virginia Mining Company. The object of the bill is to obtain an accounting between the defend. ant, the Consolidated Virginia Mining Company, and the several v.l1,no.2-7