noting that to satisfy diversity, not only must a plaintiff be a citizen of a state other than the state of which one defendant is a citizen, but also, under the rule of “complete diversity,” no plaintiff may share the same state citizenship with any defendant
How later courts described this case
- noting that to satisfy diversity, not only must a plaintiff be a citizen of a state other than the state of which one defendant is a citizen, but also, under the rule of “complete diversity,” no plaintiff may share the same state citizenship with any defendant
- concluding that, under the federal diversity, "each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts"
- finding that a controversy is between "citizens of different states” within the meaning of the statute only if no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant
- holding that Article III prohibits oendent party jurisdiction
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Louisville, Cincinnati, & Charleston Rail-Road v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497 (1844)
Listed in the Constitution Annotated's table of Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision (entry 4).
Supreme Court of the United StatesMar 15, 184427 citing opinionsother groundsofficial confidenceRead itOverruled in part by Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)
7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806), overruled in part by Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149
Distinguished
Distinguished by Caldwell-Clements, Inc. v. Cowan Publishing Corp., 130 F. Supp. 326 (1955)
While the rule usually applicable to a multiple party situation is that there must be complete diversity between the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the defendants, on the other hand, Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch 267, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435, this rule is inapplicable to a situation where the co-citizen plaintiff does not have a “joint” interest with the other plaintiff in the state-created claim.
The opinion
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 r,... are, and others are not, competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in the *- •courts of the United States.
Decree affirmed.