Huester v. Gilmour, 1209.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1209.,1209. |
| Citation | 13 F. Supp. 630 |
| Parties | HUESTER et al. v. GILMOUR et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Jerome K. Barrett, of Scranton, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Scragg & Scragg, of Scranton, Pa., for defendants.
This is a bill in equity brought by plaintiffs, as stockholders of the Dollar State Bank & Trust Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, for themselves and for such other stockholders who may come in and contribute to the expense of this suit against certain individuals trading as copartners, seeking an accounting, judgment, and other relief for an alleged wrong by defendants against the Dollar State Bank & Trust Company.
The plaintiffs are all residents of the state of Pennsylvania. Nine of the defendants are residents of the state of New York; one is a resident of the state of Connecticut; one is a resident of the state of New Jersey; and two are residents of the state of Pennsylvania.
A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint for want of jurisdiction was filed by one of the defendants. Plaintiffs answered, admitting that the allegation of jurisdiction for the said bill of complaint is based on diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants; and further admitting that all of the plaintiffs are residents of the state of Pennsylvania and that two of the defendants are residents of the state of Pennsylvania. For further answer, the plaintiffs aver that this is a stockholders' bill of complaint, which is a class suit, and as such is an exception to the rule as to diversity of citizenship.
The rule as to diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal jurisdiction is: "Federal courts do not have jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship unless that diversity exists between all the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and all the defendants, on the other, at the time suit is instituted." Osthaus v. Button et al. (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 392, 393.
A "class suit" is one in which one or more members of a numerous class, having a common interest, sue in behalf of themselves and all other members of that class. This is a "class suit," and plaintiffs contend that, for that reason alone, the rule as to diversity of citizenship does not apply. But, in order that the exception to the rule may be applied, there must have been diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants in their own behalf at the time the suit was brought, which did not exist in this case. Where there was diversity of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Queeney
...15 F.2d 990; Von Herberg v. City of Seattle, 9 Cir., 27 F.2d 457; Nagle v. Wyoga Gas & Oil Corp., D.C., 10 F.Supp. 905; Huester v. Gilmour, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 630; Stapleton Nat'l Bank v. Union Trust Co., D.C., 288 F. Plaintiffs assert that the Federal Courts having jurisdiction over the Tran......
-
Steinberg v. American Bantam Car Co.
...exists between all plaintiffs on one hand, and as to the defendants, on the other hand, at the time suit is instituted. Huester et al. v. Gilmour, D. C., 13 F.Supp. 630; Morris, Wheeler & Co., Inc., v. Rust Engineering Co. et al., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 307; Walls v. Universal Pictures Co., D.C., 6......
-
Kamosky v. Scranton Beverage Co., Civ. A. No. 3109.
...Ohio. The rule as to diversity of citizenship as a basis for Federal Jurisdiction, as stated by this Court, in Huester et al. v. Gilmour et al., D.C.1936, 13 F.Supp. 630, 631, quoting from Osthaus v. Button et al., 3 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 392, is: "Federal courts do not have jurisdiction on t......