From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

U.S.
Jan 1, 1806
7 U.S. 267 (1806)

Summary

holding that the diversity statute requires that the citizenship of all plaintiffs be different from the citizenship of all defendants

Summary of this case from Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. Tienergy, LLC

Opinion

FEBRUARY TERM, 1806.

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,


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 complaintants 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 subpœna was served in that state.


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 meant 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.


Summaries of

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

U.S.
Jan 1, 1806
7 U.S. 267 (1806)

holding that the diversity statute requires that the citizenship of all plaintiffs be different from the citizenship of all defendants

Summary of this case from Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. Tienergy, LLC

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Lyons v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Equipped LLC v. Dialectic Distribution LLC

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC v. Kaisha

holding that Congress's grant of diversity jurisdiction to the federal courts requires that no plaintiff and defendant be from the same state

Summary of this case from Columbia Park E. MHP, LLC v. U.S. Bank

holding that diversity, in this context, requires "complete diversity"

Summary of this case from Sitton v. LVMPD

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. v. Poczobut

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Acevedo v. Comprehensive Behavioral Healthcare

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Ramirez v. ABC News Network

holding that diversity jurisdiction requires that each plaintiff be a citizen of a state different from that of each defendant in a given action

Summary of this case from Miklaszewski v. General Electric Company

holding that, for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332, there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Ferraioli v. City of Hackensack Police Department

holding that a controversy is not between "citizens of different states," so as to give jurisdiction to the federal courts, unless all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side

Summary of this case from Murphy v. State

holding that complete diversity is necessary for jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Strecker v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.

In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), this Court construed the original Judiciary Act's diversity provision to require complete diversity of citizenship.

Summary of this case from Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis

In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), this Court held that the diversity of citizenship statute required "complete diversity": where co-citizens appeared on both sides of a dispute, jurisdiction was lost.

Summary of this case from State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v. Tashire

requiring complete diversity under the predecessor statute to § 1332

Summary of this case from Caron v. NCL (Bah.), Ltd.

interpreting the language of the general federal diversity statute to require complete diversity

Summary of this case from Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp

establishing the complete diversity rule

Summary of this case from Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant

In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), the Supreme Court held that the diversity requirement is satisfied only if there is "complete diversity" among the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Summary of this case from Northern Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp.

requiring complete diversity of parties

Summary of this case from Coleman v. Dollar Tree Stores

requiring each plaintiff to be from a state different from each defendant for jurisdiction to be proper under § 1332

Summary of this case from Erwin-El v. Genesee Cnty. Land Bank Auth.

In Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), the Supreme Court construed the original Judiciary Act's diversity provision to require complete diversity of citizenship. Courts have adhered to that statutory interpretation ever since.

Summary of this case from D'Andrea Constr. Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp.

explaining diversity jurisdiction requires diversity among all plaintiffs and all defendants

Summary of this case from Baker v. Bank of Am., N.A.

requiring complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants

Summary of this case from Perez v. Bank of Am., N.A.

establishing the rule of complete diversity

Summary of this case from Boutwell v. Walker
Case details for

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

Case Details

Full title:STRAWBRIDGE ET AL. v . CURTISS ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 1, 1806

Citations

7 U.S. 267 (1806)

Citing Cases

Price v. Allstate Ins. Co.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Section 1332 requires complete diversity between all parties. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7…

Peters v. Pumpkin Air, Inc.

I. Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Peters asserts that there is no subject matter jurisdiction based upon…