Boice v. Boice

Third Circuit

Boice v. Boice

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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1943

Docket8270

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 135 F.2d 919 (Boice v. Boice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F.2d 919, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boice-v-boice-ca3-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack