Claiborne v. Waddell

U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Claiborne v. Waddell

50 F. 368, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1727

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia

DecidedMarch 11, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 F. 368 (Claiborne v. Waddell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claiborne v. Waddell, 50 F. 368, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1727 (circtndga 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Newman, District Judge.

It will be perceived that this bill has been pending in court for 14 years, and no question of jurisdiction has ever been raised in it. ■ The defendant Waddell, who' now makes the ques[369]*369tion of jurisdiction, filed an answer to the bill in July, 1878. It seems clear that with the present parties to the case the court is without jurisdiction. In arranging the parties according to their interests, and as, to their respective sides in the controversy, it will be necessary to place Mrs. Phillips with the complainants; and the fact of her residence and citizenship in this district will bo fatal to the jurisdiction. Bland v. Fleeman, 29 Fed. Rep. 669; Covert v. Waldron, 33 Fed. Rep. 311; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. Rep. 273. Where there is great delay, as in this case, in raising the question of jurisdiction, the court will consider the delay in passing upon the question. See Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. 241, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539. The counsel for complainants suggested to the court his right to dismiss as to Mrs. Phillips, which would obviate all difficulty as to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground of citizenship; and the question would then remain as to whether or not it is necessary to retain Mrs. Phillips as an indispensable party, under the equity practice of the court. In Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, a case very much like this, being a suit to recover assets of an estate in the hands of an executor, the suit was brought in Alabama, where the executor resided, and two of the parties made defendants resided in the state of Texas, which was the residence of the complainants. The objection to the jurisdiction was met by the dismissal of the suit as to the two defendants resident in Texas. The dismissal as to these parties, thereby obviating the question of jurisdiction, was sustained by the supreme court, and I am unable to see the difference in principle between that dismissal and the dismissal here of the case as to Mrs. Phillips. The two defendants as to whom that case wuis dismissed had interests identical with the interest of Mrs. Phillips in this case; and, if a decree could be rendered in that ease without their presence as indispensable parties, I see no reason why it may not be rendered in this ease. Upon the authority of the case just cited, I am of the opinion that, if counsel for complainants desire, an order may be taken, dismissing this case as to Mrs. Phillips; otherwise, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

Newman, District Judge.

It will be perceived that this bill has been pending in court for 14 years, and no question of jurisdiction has ever been raised in it. ■ The defendant Waddell, who' now makes the ques[369]*369tion of jurisdiction, filed an answer to the bill in July, 1878. It seems clear that with the present parties to the case the court is without jurisdiction. In arranging the parties according to their interests, and as, to their respective sides in the controversy, it will be necessary to place Mrs. Phillips with the complainants; and the fact of her residence and citizenship in this district will bo fatal to the jurisdiction. Bland v. Fleeman, 29 Fed. Rep. 669; Covert v. Waldron, 33 Fed. Rep. 311; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. Rep. 273. Where there is great delay, as in this case, in raising the question of jurisdiction, the court will consider the delay in passing upon the question. See Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. 241, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539. The counsel for complainants suggested to the court his right to dismiss as to Mrs. Phillips, which would obviate all difficulty as to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground of citizenship; and the question would then remain as to whether or not it is necessary to retain Mrs. Phillips as an indispensable party, under the equity practice of the court. In Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, a case very much like this, being a suit to recover assets of an estate in the hands of an executor, the suit was brought in Alabama, where the executor resided, and two of the parties made defendants resided in the state of Texas, which was the residence of the complainants. The objection to the jurisdiction was met by the dismissal of the suit as to the two defendants resident in Texas. The dismissal as to these parties, thereby obviating the question of jurisdiction, was sustained by the supreme court, and I am unable to see the difference in principle between that dismissal and the dismissal here of the case as to Mrs. Phillips. The two defendants as to whom that case wuis dismissed had interests identical with the interest of Mrs. Phillips in this case; and, if a decree could be rendered in that ease without their presence as indispensable parties, I see no reason why it may not be rendered in this ease. Upon the authority of the case just cited, I am of the opinion that, if counsel for complainants desire, an order may be taken, dismissing this case as to Mrs. Phillips; otherwise, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 F. 368, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claiborne-v-waddell-circtndga-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack