Stewart v. Dunham
Decision Date | 04 May 1885 |
Citation | 29 L.Ed. 329,5 S.Ct. 1163,115 U.S. 61 |
Parties | STEWART and others, Partners, etc., v. DUNHAM and others, Partners, etc., and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
T. C. Catchings, for appellants.
John F. Hanna and James M. Johnston, for appellees.
The appellees, who composed the firms of Dunham, Buckley & Co., who were citizens of New York, and of Edwin Bates & Co., who were citizens of New York and South Carolina, filed their bill in equity, on July 14, 1881, in the chancery court of Jefferson county, Mississippi, against John W. Broughton, and Andrew Stewart, Andrew D. Gwynne, and P. H. Haley, composing the firm of Stewart Bros. & Co., and others, all of whom were citizens either of Mississippi or of Louisiana.
On September 16, 1881, the complainants filed a petition for the removal of the cause from the state court to the circuit court of the United States for that district, on the ground of citizenship, the amount in controversy being in excess of $500 in value, and presented a bond in conformity with the provisions of law. This was denied, notwithstanding which a certified transcript of the proceedings in the cause was filed in the circuit court on November 3, 1881, and that court proceeded thereon to final decree. The complainants in the bill were creditors severally of Broughton, and its object and prayer were to set aside a conveyance of a stock of merchandise, made by him to the defendants Stewart Bros. & Co., alleged to be fraudulent as against his creditors, and was filed on behalf of the complainants and all other creditors who might come in and share the costs of the litigation. After the cause was removed into the circuit court, the bill was amended by permitting Sigmond Katz, Jacob Katz, Nathaniel Barnett, and Selvia Barnett, partners, as Katz & Barnett, and John I. Adams and W. H. Renaud, composing the firm of John I. Adams & Co., creditors, respectively, of Broughton, to become co-complainants. The members of the firm of Katz & Barnett are described as 'resident citizens of and doing business in the city of New Orleans, state of Louisiana, and in the city of New York, state of New York.' The citizenship of those who constitute the firm of John I. Adams & Co. does not appear.
On final hearing, on November 25, 1882, a decree was rendered in favor of the complainants, finding that the transfer and conveyance of his property by Broughton to Stewart Bros. & Co., described in the pleadings, was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the complainants and other creditors of Broughton, with the knowledge and connivance of Stewart Bros. & Co., and the same was thereby canceled, set aside, and declared to be null and void. The decree proceeds as follows: The appeal is from this decree.
The appellants assign as error that the court proceeded to decree, after admitting Katz & Barnett and John I. Adams & Co. as co-complainants, alleging that, as the case then stood, it was without jurisdiction, as the controversy did not appear to be wholly between citizens of different states. This, ninety- one 8-100 dollars, ($4,391.08;) to objection to the removal of the cause from the state court, because at that time these parties had not been admitted to the cause; and their introduction afterwards as co-complainants did not oust the jurisdiction of the court, already lawfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Sperling
...supra, 244 U.S. at page 275, 37 S.Ct. 511; Phelps v. Oaks, 1886, 117 U.S. 236, 241, 6 S.Ct. 714, 29 L.Ed. 888; Stewart v. Dunham, 1885, 115 U.S. 61, 64, 5 S.Ct. 1163, 29 L.Ed. 329; Feidler v. Bartleson, 9 Cir., 1908, 161 F. 30, 35; Oils, Inc. v. Blankenship, 10 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 354, cer......
-
In re Independent Clearing House Co.
...was uniformly recognized that, acting in good faith, a debtor might thus prefer one or more creditors. Stewart, et al. v. Dunham, et al., 115 U.S. 61 5 S.Ct. 1163, 29 L.Ed. 329 (1885); Huntley v. Kingman, 152 U.S. 527 14 S.Ct. 688, 38 L.Ed. 540 We are of the opinion that Congress, in enacti......
-
Snyder v. Harris Gas Service Company v. Coburn
...or members of the class represented by the original parties are citizens of the same State as an adverse party. Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U.S. 61, 5 S.Ct. 1163, 29 L.Ed. 329 (1885); Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356, 41 S.Ct. 338, 65 L.Ed. 673 (1921). The original Rule 23 provid......
-
Collins v. Bolton
...diversity of citizenship. Diversity in class actions is judged only by the representative parties in the class. Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U.S. 61, 5 S. Ct. 1163, 29 L.Ed. 329 (1885); Irwin v. Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Company, 19 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1927). It follows that the class action......
-
An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
...the proposition that "[c]lass suits have long been recognized in federal jurisprudence"). (366) See id. at 365 (citing Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U.S. 61, 64 (1885)) (holding that the intervention of the co-complainants who were creditors from the same state as the defendants did not oust the j......
-
Assessing CAFA's stated jurisdictional policy.
...(19) See infra text accompanying notes 109-110. (20) 255 U.S. 356, 365-66 (1921). (21) Id. at 365 (relying on Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U.S. 61 (1885)). In Stewart, the Court held that once there was jurisdiction as between the original plaintiffs mad defendants, "the court, in exercising juri......