Strawbridge Et Al v. Curtiss Et Al

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
Citation2 L.Ed. 435,3 Cranch 267,7 U.S. 267
Decision Date01 February 1806
PartiesSTRAWBRIDGE ET AL. v. CURTISS ET AL

7 U.S. 267
3 Cranch 267
2 L.Ed. 435
STRAWBRIDGE ET AL.
v.
CURTISS ET AL.
February Term, 1806

THIS was an appeal from a decree of the circuit court, for the district of Massachusetts, which dismissed the complainants' bill in chancery, for want of jurisdiction.

Some of the complainants were alleged to be citizens of the state of Massachusetts. The defendants were also stated to be citizens of the same state, excepting Curtiss, who was averred to be a citizen of the state of Vermont, and upon whom the subpoena was served in that state.

The question of jurisdiction was submitted to the court without argument, by P. B. Key, for the appellants, and Harper, for the appellees.

On a subsequent day,

MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court.

The court has considered this case, and is of opinion that the jurisdiction cannot be supported.

The words of the act of congress are, 'where an alien is a party; or the suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.'

The court understands these expressions to mean that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts. That is, that where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in those courts.

But the court does not mean to give an opinion in the case where several parties represent several distinct interests,

Page 268

and some of those parties are, and others are not, competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in the courts of the United States.

Decree affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1817 practice notes
  • LAKE LANSING SP. A. PROT. ASS'N v. INGHAM CTY., ETC., No. G-78-648.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • April 16, 1980
    ...of this Court. This attempt failed since complete diversity is obviously lacking. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806); Bowman v. White, 388 F.2d 756 (CA 4, 1968). The lack of diversity is indicated on the face of the Amended Complaint in paragraph 7, which reve......
  • Wells' Dairy v. American Indus. Refrigeration, No. C 01-4052-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • August 10, 2001
    ...is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff." Walker v. Norwest Corp., 108 F.3d 158, 161 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, Page 1026 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), and Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (19......
  • Jaramillo v. Frewing, No. CIV 17-0673 JB/SCY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 28, 2018
    ...09-0567 JB/LAM, 2010 WL 553443, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 9, 2010) (Browning, J.)(citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267–68, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), overruled in part by Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ; McPhail v. Deere & C......
  • Hooks v. Hooks, No. 84-5043
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 23, 1985
    ...we lack subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim against him. The rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), requiring complete diversity, precludes application of diversity jurisdiction. See C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 95 (3d ed. 1976). ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1816 cases
  • LAKE LANSING SP. A. PROT. ASS'N v. INGHAM CTY., ETC., No. G-78-648.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • April 16, 1980
    ...of this Court. This attempt failed since complete diversity is obviously lacking. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806); Bowman v. White, 388 F.2d 756 (CA 4, 1968). The lack of diversity is indicated on the face of the Amended Complaint in paragraph 7, which reve......
  • Wells' Dairy v. American Indus. Refrigeration, No. C 01-4052-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • August 10, 2001
    ...is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff." Walker v. Norwest Corp., 108 F.3d 158, 161 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, Page 1026 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), and Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (19......
  • Jaramillo v. Frewing, No. CIV 17-0673 JB/SCY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 28, 2018
    ...09-0567 JB/LAM, 2010 WL 553443, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 9, 2010) (Browning, J.)(citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267–68, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), overruled in part by Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ; McPhail v. Deere & C......
  • Hooks v. Hooks, No. 84-5043
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 23, 1985
    ...we lack subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim against him. The rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), requiring complete diversity, precludes application of diversity jurisdiction. See C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 95 (3d ed. 1976). ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • EQUITY AND THE SOVEREIGN.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 5, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...United States, equity jurisprudence generally embraces the same matters of jurisdiction and modes of remedy as exist in England."). (161) 7 U.S. 267 (162) 211 U.S. 149 (1908). (163) See supra note 153-54. For an examination of the distinct question whether Article III courts possess inheren......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT