With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". presumption of collusion to upstream assignments. Accord that it was not disturbing prior decisions in cases where a claimant makes a bona fide, absolute transfer of its claims to a diverse citizen for the purpose of invoking federal jurisdiction. Kramer, 394 U.S. at 828, 89 S.Ct. 1487. In such cases, the Court has held that federal jurisdiction is proper, and the motives of the transfer are irrelevant. Id. For instance, in Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276 U.S. 518, 48 S.Ct. 404, 72 L.Ed. 681 (1928), the Court held that it was not collusive for a non-diverse corporation to dissolve and transfer its property into a new corporation for the purpose of creating diversity of citizenship. Id. 60 U.S. 327, 16 S.Ct. 307, 40 L.Ed. 444 (1895) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). We conclude that subject

A: holding that jurisdiction was collusively obtained when a corporation made a grant of disputed land to a newlycreated outofstate corporation without exchanging any valuable consideration
B: holding that the action on the part of the corporation in making payments for so long a period without objection constituted a ratification of the agreement by the corporation
C: holding that corporation and sole owner of corporation were separate legal entities and corporation was not party to contract signed by owner in individual capacity
D: holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation
A.