Fulton Nat Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier
Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 260,260 |
Citation | 267 U.S. 276,69 L.Ed. 609,45 S.Ct. 261 |
Parties | FULTON NAT. BANK OF ATLANTA v. HOZIER et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Marion Smith, John D. Little, Arthur G. Powell, and Max F. Goldstein, all of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Mr. Arthur Heyman, of Atlanta, Ga., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from page 277 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This cause arises from an intervention petition filed by respondent Hozier in a proceeding to administer the assets of Imbrie & Co., a partnership, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia. The following statement from the opinion of that court (287 F. 158, 159) sufficiently indicates the material issues:
The trial court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the intervention petition as a dependent controversy, and decreed:
'That the receivers in the above-stated consolidated cause recover from the Fulton National Bank of Atlanta the principal sum of twenty-six hundred fifty-six and 13/100 dollars ($2,656.13), together with interest at the rate of seven per cent. (7%) per annum from the date of this judgment, and upon the recovery of same, that said receivers pay said amount to I. S. Hozier, intervener, or his counsel of record.'
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The cause is here by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Sperling
...suit is "ancillary" in character. See e. g. Mitchell v. Maurer, supra, 293 U.S. 237, 55 S.Ct. 162; Fulton Nat. Bank v. Hozier, 1925, 267 U.S. 276, 280, 45 S.Ct. 261, 69 L.Ed. 609; Hamer v. N. Y. Rys. Co., supra, 244 U.S. at page 275, 37 S.Ct. 511; Phelps v. Oaks, 1886, 117 U.S. 236, 241, 6 ......
-
United States v. Acord
...95 L.Ed. 523. 3 United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 769, 85 L.Ed. 1058. 4 Fulton National Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier, 267 U.S. 276, 280, 45 S.Ct. 261, 69 L.Ed. 609; Eichel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 245 U.S. 102, 104, 38 S.Ct. 47, 62 L.Ed. 177; Mitchell......
-
Maltais v. United States
...the subordinate dispute arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the federal claim. E. g., Fulton National Bank v. Hozier, 267 U.S. 276, 280, 45 S.Ct. 261, 69 L.Ed. 609 (1925); United States v. United Pacific Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 792 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 982, 93 S......
-
NJ Dept. of Env. Prot. v. Gloucester Env. Mgt.
...possession or control by the principal suit. Aldinger, 427 U.S. at 11-12, 96 S.Ct. at 2418-2419 (quoting Fulton Bank v. Hozier, 267 U.S. 276, 280, 45 S.Ct. 261, 262, 69 L.Ed. 609 (1925)). Consequently, article III gives the court power to hear the DEP's claims against the New Holland defend......
-
Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction: the Misinterpretation of Kokkonen and Expungement Petitions
...inaccurate." Id. at 378-79 (discussing Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93, 113-14 (1904) and Fulton Nat'l Bank v. Hozier Intervener, 267 U.S. 276, 280 (1925)).185. Id. at 376-77 186. Id. at 376-77.187. Id. at 377.188. Id.189. Id.190. Id.191. Id. A federal court has original subject ma......
-
Article Iii and the "related To" Bankruptcy Jurisdiction: a Case Study in Protective Jurisdiction
...Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 56 U.S.L.W. 4101 (U.S. Jan. 20, 1988) (No. 86-1021). 138. See, e.g., Fulton National Bank v. Hozier, 267 U.S. 276 (1925). Interpleader provides another example of "limited" diversity federal jurisdiction. Statutory interpleader only requires diversity j......