Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/322

310 FEDERAL REPQBTEB. �appointed a receiver. Eespondents then filed a demurrer to the bill on the ground that theeourt had no jurisdiction. �Joseph De F. Junkin, E, Coppee Mitchell, and George Junkin, for c jmplainants. �George Tucker Bispham, for Walter and Hite �George L. Craioford and George M. Dallas, for L. Harry Kicliards. �T. Elliott Patterson and Hugh W. Steffey, for Atlantic & Ohio Eail- road Company. �BuTLBE D. J., (orally.) When the bill in this case was first pre- sunted, it was observed that the plaintiffs were citizens of Pennsyl- vania, that some of the defendants were citizens of Virginia and some citizens of Pennsylvftnia. The question of jurisdiction at once pre- sented itself to the court, and the attention of couneel was called to it. Effort was made to obviate the objection by amendment, and the case was argued upon the motion for prelimiary injunctioh. The court did not think the amendment effected any change, and again ealled attention of counsel to the subjebt, being reluctant to re- tain jurisdiction, and especially to grant an injunction, while there was i'oom for serious question as to the jurisdiction. I enter- tained doubt whether it was not my duty before granting the injunction tb cohsider and pass upon the question, but supposed that inasmuCh as counsel for respondants did not raise it, there might be more room for doubt than I saw. I took care, in the opin- ion, to say that the action of the court was based Only upon the ques- tions discussed. Subsequently the question of jurisdiction was raised by demurrEr, The impression entertained at the outset bas, after listening to the discussion, and after careful consideration, deepened into conviction, which is shared by Judge McKennan. In my judg- ment the matter is not Open to doiibt. �Our jurisdiction must be referred to the act of March 3, 1875. The language of the first section of this act is iaentical with that of the first clause of the second section. The first section bas not here- tofore called for construction by the courts. The second section has repeatedly, and the decisions of the supreme court upon it have been uniform. In the Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 469, although the judges were not unanimolls, a majority held that the statute gives jurisdic- tion only where the' cbntroversy is one exclusively between citizens of different states ; where all the defendants reside in a state other than that in which plaintiffs reside ; that where one ov more reside in the saiue state as a plaintiff, the'cburt has no jurisdiction; that it is only where a controversy exista between citizens exclusively of differ- ��� �