Chaffin v. St. Louis

The answer sets up the suit of the city of St. Louis, commenced in May, 1870, in the state court against the St Louis Gas Light Company (in which the present plaintiff is a stockholder), to enforce the right of the city to purchase the works and property of the gas company, conferred by the legislature of the state in that behalf, and by the contract of January 9th, 1846. This alleged right of the city to make such purchase was denied by the gas company, and the record of that suit shows that such right was vigorously resisted at every step of the progress of that suit. After a hearing on the merits, that court, June 1st, 1876, entered an interlocutory decree declaring that the contract of January 9th, 1846, was valid, and that the city had the right to purchase the works and property of the gas light company; and afterwards, on the 12th day of February, a final decree was rendered effectuating such right, and declaring that all the estate, .interest, and claim of the gas light company to its works and property be vested in the city of St Louis; which decree is alleged in the answer to be in full force and unreversed. The present suit by a stockholder in the said gas light company was brought in this court November 23d, 1S76, which was after the interlocutory decree above mentioned was rendered in the state court.

One of the main objects of the present bill is to have the contract of January 9th, 1846, declared null and void as respects the gas light company. But the state court having jurisdiction of the suit of the city against *410the gas light company, upon pleadings presenting that precise issue, has judicially determined that said contract, in the respect here involved, was a valid contract, and the answer which pleads this decree avers that the gas light company and the directors in good faith defended said action in the state court, and are now defending the same, and further avers that the decree in the said suit, which is in full force, is binding upon the gas light company, its directors and stockholders, including the complainant A decree thus rendered upon adverse proceedings, and without fraud and collusion, is binding upon the gas light company, and upon its stockholders; and the latter cannot as we said when the injunction asked for was denied, afterwards draw the litigation into a federal court in a suit between themselves and the litigants in the state court If this could be done, there would be no end to a suit against a private corporation so long as any stockholder should see fit to re-litigate the same controversy in his own name.

The exceptions to the answer are disallowed. Ordered accordingly.