Menefee v. Frost
| Decision Date | 23 May 1903 |
| Citation | 123 F. 633 |
| Parties | MENEFEE et al. v. FROST et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Kneeland, La Fetra & Glaze, for the motion.
J. M. Coleman, opposed.
No federal question in involved, and jurisdiction can be entertained only by reason of diversity of citizenship. The complainants are citizens of Texas and Illinois. The three defendants are citizens of New York. It appears, however, that one of the defendants, Wilkinson, should be a party plaintiff, and is named as a defendant solely for the reason that he refuses to join in the bill. The suit is for an accounting upon a written contract in which the three plaintiffs and Wilkinson appear as parties of the first part, and the other two defendants as parties of the second part. The motion must be disposed of, therefore, as if the parties were rearranged as complainants and defendants in conformity to their respective interests in the controversy. When this is done, there will be found a citizen of New York on both sides of the controversy, and, on well-settled principles, this court has no jurisdiction.
Motion granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turman Oil Co. v. Lathrop
...264 U. S. 182, 44 S. Ct. 266, 68 L. Ed. 628, 31 A. L. R. 867; City Bond & Finance, Inc., v. Grant (C. C. A.) 30 F.(2d) 671; Menefee v. Frost (C. C.) 123 F. 633; Reeves v. Corning (C. C.) 51 F. 774, and others touching upon questions of removal of causes. There can be no doubt as to the soun......
-
Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co, 222
...The joinder of both is much more than a mere form. As both are named they must be arranged upon the side on which they belong. Menefee v. Frost (C. C.) 123 F. 633. Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96, 8 S. Ct. 1096, 32 L. Ed. Decree affirmed. ...