Boice v. Boice

Third Circuit

Boice v. Boice

135 F.2d 919, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3453

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided May 20, 1943·No. 8270·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint which seeks an interpleader between the defendants must be affirmed for the reasons well stated in the opinion of Judge Fake, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 183. We think also that the dismissal was right because of an absence of diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, Edith Gibby Boice. This is not a case of strict interpleader in which the plaintiff appears as a mere stakeholder without any interest in a controversy between defendants whose diversity of citizenship satisfies the statute. Treines v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S.Ct. 44, 84 L.Ed. 85. On the contrary this is a case of a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader in which the plaintiff has an active controversy with respect to the subject matter of the suit with one of the defendants, Mrs. Boice. Since these parties are both citizens of New Jersey the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The order of the district court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint which seeks an interpleader between the defendants must be affirmed for the reasons well stated in the opinion of Judge Fake, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 183. We think also that the dismissal was right because of an absence of diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, Edith Gibby Boice. This is not a case of strict interpleader in which the plaintiff appears as a mere stakeholder without any interest in a controversy between defendants whose diversity of citizenship satisfies the statute. Treines v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S.Ct. 44, 84 L.Ed. 85. On the contrary this is a case of a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader in which the plaintiff has an active controversy with respect to the subject matter of the suit with one of the defendants, Mrs. Boice. Since these parties are both citizens of New Jersey the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The order is affirmed.

Boice v. Boice, 135 F.2d 919, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3453 (3d Cir. 1943).

Pincite

135 F.2d 919 (Boice v. Boice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related