1. No reason appears why complainant should not seek the relief he desires through the courts of the states in which the individual defendant or the company whose shares of stock are involved in the voting trust agreement were in question, are domiciled. The bill will therefore be stricken as to the moving defendant.
2. The voting trust agreement does not purport to confer jurisdiction on any court of this state to hear and determine the controversy. It merely provides that such controversy shall be covered by the laws of this state. Even if the intent of the parties to the agreement was to grant or confer such jurisdiction on this court, it cannot avail complainant.
PER CURIAM.
The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Fielder.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, DONGES, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, WELLS, THOMPSON, JJ. 9.
For reversal — BODINE, HEHER, COLIE, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 5.