# Strawbridge v. Curtiss

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 13, 1806 · 7 U.S. 267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/84812

## Case

- **Full name:** Strawbridge Et Al. v. Curtiss Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 13, 1806
- **Citations:** 7 U.S. 267; 3 Cranch 267; 2 L. Ed. 435; 1806 U.S. LEXIS 331
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Marshall
- **Judges:** Marshall
- **Cited by:** 1,967 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Louisville, Cincinnati, & Charleston Rail-Road v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497 (1844).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/84812

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that the diversity statute requires that the citizenship of all plaintiffs be different from 6 No. 17-2343 the citizenship of all defendants

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/84812. Public record. Not legal advice.