Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ORIGINAL. This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the' Southern District of-New York to command them to take jurisdiction against the Quincy' Mining Company upon a bill in equity, filed in that court on September 3, 1891, by the petitioner, described in the bill as a citizen of Massachusetts, in behalf of himself and other stockholders of the Quincy Mining Company, :against “ the Quincy Mining Company, a…
Read the full summary
ORIGINAL. This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the' Southern District of-New York to command them to take jurisdiction against the Quincy' Mining Company upon a bill in equity, filed in that court on September 3, 1891, by the petitioner, described in the bill as a citizen of Massachusetts, in behalf of himself and other stockholders of the Quincy Mining Company, :against “ the Quincy Mining Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, and having a usual place of business in the city, county and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
The single question in this case is whether under the act of March 3, -1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888,- c. 866, (the material parts of which are copied in the margin, 1 ) a corporation incorporated in one State of the Union,- and having a usual place of business in another State in which it has not been incorporated, may be sued, in a Circuit Court of the United States held in the latter State, by a citizen of a different State.
This question, upon which there has been a diversity of opinion in the Circuit Courts, can be best determined by a review of the acts of…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Bank of Augusta v. EarleSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Ex Parte SchollenbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by304 opinions
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. MurphreeSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
299 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.