Strawbridge Et Al v. Curtiss Et Al

Decision Date01 February 1806
Citation2 L.Ed. 435,3 Cranch 267,7 U.S. 267
PartiesSTRAWBRIDGE ET AL. v. CURTISS ET AL
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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, 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
1877 cases
  • In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Washington
    • October 31, 1991
    ...as this statute has long been interpreted as requiring complete diversity between opposing parties. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). Further, while it is generally the rule that "a plaintiff who has a state common law action that also falls within another s......
  • Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • November 20, 2003
    ...diversity jurisdiction to only those cases where no shared citizenship exists between the adverse parties. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). If a party not diverse to the plaintiff has been joined as a defendant prior to the removal, the complete diversity r......
  • Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 28, 1995
    ...defendant. C.T. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 1017, 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), overruled on other grounds, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 497, 555, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844); Curley v. Brignoli, Curley & Roberts......
  • Lenz v. Associated Inns & Restaurants Co. of Am., 90 Civ. 3026 (KC).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 24, 1993
    ...diversity jurisdiction because the requisite complete diversity among defendants and plaintiffs is absent. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). Defendants point out that the partnership is a named plaintiff and, for diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 2 - 2016 Contents
    • August 18, 2016
    ...1999), §37:410 Strauss v. New York Ethical Culture Society , 210 AD2d 134, 620 NYS2d 51 (1st Dept 1994), §28:190 Strawbridge v. Curtiss , 7 US 267 (3 Cranch 1806), §8:471 Strax v. Granoff & Walker , 160 Misc2d 85, 612 NYS2d 291 (1st Dept 1994), §29:83 Stray v. Lutz , 306 AD2d 836, 762 NYS2d......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Civil Practice Before Trial. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ...1999), §37:410 Strauss v. New York Ethical Culture Society , 210 AD2d 134, 620 NYS2d 51 (1st Dept 1994), §28:190 Strawbridge v. Curtiss , 7 US 267 (3 Cranch 1806), §8:471 Strax v. Granoff & Walker , 160 Misc2d 85, 612 NYS2d 291 (1st Dept 1994), §29:83 Stray v. Lutz , 306 AD2d 836, 762 NYS2d......
  • Waste-d Chance: The Risk of Ignoring Judicial Federalism in Local Controversies: Kitchin v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 No. 3, June 2022
    • June 22, 2022
    ...Id. at 1094, 1096; see also 28 U.S.C. [section] 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb). (32) Kitchin, 3 F.4th at 1094. (33) See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806); 13E CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE JURISDICTION [section] 3605 (3d (34) Emery G. Lee III &......
  • Diversity jurisdiction removal in Florida.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 1, January 2003
    • January 1, 2003
    ...provides concurrent federal jurisdiction in actions between "citizens of different states." In the case of Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7 U.S. 267 (1806), the Supreme Court interpreted this language to require what has come to be known as "complete" diversity in federal jurisdiction. Thus, for fe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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