BRADFORD SAV. BAn
BRADFORD SAV. BANJr & TRUST Co. et ale
(Oircuit Oourt, D.
April 7, 1891.)
FEDBRALCOUBTS-JURISDICTION-,.CHOSB IN ACTION.
A proceeding in equity to compel the transfer upon the books of a corporation of 'oorpol'ate lItock which the complainant had purchased from a third person, is not ·a suit "to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee" of which jurisdiction is excluded from the federal courts by Act Congo 1888, § 1. .
B. SA.ME.....CITIZENSHIP 01' P ARTIBS. The exemption frolI\ suit out of. the district of inhabitancy, secured by Act Congo 1888,§ I, Is personal to a defendant, and may be waived; and where suit is brought by a citizen of Massachusetts against a Vermont corporation and a New York c6r" poration in, the circuJt llourt of Vermont, it will not be dismissed on motion of the Vermont corporation for want of jurisdiction of the parties in the absence of objectionby.the. New York company, especially if the suit is a proceeding to enforce an equitable claim to property in the district within the meaning of Rev. St., U.
In Equity. John R. Poor and O. A. Prouty, for complainant. John H. Watson and John Young, for defepdants. WHEELER, J. The orator is a citizen of Massachusetts, the Bradford Savings Bank & Trust Company of Vermont, and the ganover National Bank of New York. The bill is brought to compel the savings bank tb transfer on its books to the orator 94 shares of its stock, bought of the Windsor National Bank, a citizen of Vermont, of which he holds ce'ttificates and transfers, and about· which the Hanover NationSl Bank has some interest. The latter bank has appeared in the suit. The savings bank has moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction of the parties, because the other defendant is not a citizen of Vermont; and for want of jurisdiction of the cause, because the orator's claim is 19at' of an assignee of the stock a,s a chose in action. The other defendant might have objected to being sued in this district, but this defendilnt is sued in the district whereof it is an jnhabitant, and has no ground to complain of that place. Full jurisdiction of suits, in which there is a controversy between citizens of different states, is given to the circuitcdurts at the beginning of section 1 of the Acts of 1887 and 1888; the exemption from suit out of the district of inhabitancy is personal and may be Ex parte Sdhollenberger, 96 U. S.369.Especially is this so in a suit to enforce an equitable claim to property in the district where it is as this appears to be. Rev. St. U. S; § 738. Shares of stock in corporations are mere rights todivi(iends of the corporate profits or property, and in many, and perhaps most, senses chases in action; and if this suit was brought to recover such dividends that had accrued to a. former owner of the stock, and been acquired by assignment, it could not probably be maintained. The language of the latter part of that section in this respect is: v.45F.no.12-51
"Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit except upon foteign ,I:>ills of exchanKe,tp. ,recover the contents o( aI;ly promissory .' note or otller chose in action in faV'or of any assignee." But this suit is brought to perfect the record title to the stock, and not to recover the contents Of the stocR: in the sense of that word in these statutes. The suit is not upon the shares of stock to recover dividends which be, their <lontents, but is for the shares .of stock to perfect the right to the dividends as they may accrue, and the right to sue for· them in whatever may be the proper jurisdiction when theyhave accrued. Deshlerv. Dodge, 16 How. 622; Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, 105 U. S. 659. The dictiohkeptaway from these a.ppears to be that.of enforcing chases in action in favor of. assignees to recover what they will bring. The <lases cited in 'b,ehalf of this motion, Where jurisdictiqIi has been denied, were all brought for that purpose., .Shoecrajt v. Bloxham, 124 U. S; ,7,30, 8 Sup.' Ct. Rep. 686; Corbinv. County of BlackHawk, 105 U. 8.6'59; Bradley v. Rhines, 8 Wall. 393; Coffee v. Bank, 13 How. 183; Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; Turnerv. Bank, 4 Dall. 8. An action in favor of an indorsee of a promissory note against his immediate indorser accrues to him, and he C'anrnaintain:it in. the courts of the United States, notwithstanding this statute. Althotighhe is an assignee of the note, he is not an assignee of this cause of action. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 '\Vheat. 537; Coffee v. Bank, 183. Jurisdiction choses in a()tion which hlwe been does to be prohi});-: . ited unless the cause of action hasl?,een assigned,and is for the contents of the cholle.. That is not The .refusal to the stOck was D;lade to, the orator, and. that furnishes the gronnd of this ,bill. The contents of the stpckare not here sought to Motion Jenied. ' ' . J: .
(C-£rCUitOoort, D.lV'aaMngton. :March 18,1891.)
The voluntary appearance of ,defendant, and demurrer in a state court, before , expiration of the time within Which he was required topiead, in no way limits his right to file a petition and bond for. removal .the cause to the federal oourt at any time bef.ore expiration of such time. , ,Actpollg. Marcb 81 1887, provides that hE! may file tbe petition for removal "at the time, or at,any time before" defendant is " "required," by law or rule ,of court, to answer or plead. : . ,'"
o:r CAUBlI:-TDIlB:rOR RBMOVAL.
3, 1887, (24 St. 554,) relating to the remoYalof from the state tp' the providffi:that "whenever ,any: ,entitled to remoyeany >Ii. * * may:;desire to remove such sqit from a state court·tp the ,cirGPit;cQurtof tla.e United 8tates,he may mltke and file apetitioninsuphsuit' in such state court, at the time or at any time defendqnt iJl required, by the laws of the or