Hancock v. Holbrook

Supreme Court

Hancock v. Holbrook

119 U.S. 586, 7 S. Ct. 341, 30 L. Ed. 538, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1922

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 10, 1887

Docket1094

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 119 U.S. 586 (Hancock v. Holbrook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hancock v. Holbrook, 119 U.S. 586, 7 S. Ct. 341, 30 L. Ed. 538, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1922 (1887).

Pincite

Opinion

. Me. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The order remanding this ease is affirmed. A suit cannot ■ be removed from a State Court to a Circuit Court of the United States under subsection 3 of .§ 639 of the Kevised Stat-' utes on the ground, pf “ prejudice or local influence,” unless ¿11 the plaintiffs or all the defendants are citizens of the state in which the suit was brought, and of a state other than thát of which those petitioning for the removal are citizens. Here -it appears that Hancock, the'plaintiff, oh whose petition the removal was had, is a citizen of New York,- and Eliza Jane' Holbrook and G-eorge' Nicholson,.two ,of the defendants, and those principally.interested.in-the.litigation, citizens of'Missis,-sippi, while R1W. Holbrook and Richard Fitzgerald, the other defendants, are alone citizens of Louisiana, where the suit y/as brought. These Louisiana defendants are necessary partiés to' the.suit, but, according to-the record, those who are citizens of Mississippi are- the real parties in interest. Affirmed.

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

. Me. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The order remanding this ease is affirmed. A suit cannot ■ be removed from a State Court to a Circuit Court of the United States under subsection 3 of .§ 639 of the Kevised Stat-' utes on the ground, pf “ prejudice or local influence,” unless ¿11 the plaintiffs or all the defendants are citizens of the state in which the suit was brought, and of a state other than thát of which those petitioning for the removal are citizens. Here -it appears that Hancock, the'plaintiff, oh whose petition the removal was had, is a citizen of New York,- and Eliza Jane' Holbrook and G-eorge' Nicholson,.two ,of the defendants, and those principally.interested.in-the.litigation, citizens of'Missis,-sippi, while R1W. Holbrook and Richard Fitzgerald, the other defendants, are alone citizens of Louisiana, where the suit y/as brought. These Louisiana defendants are necessary partiés to' the.suit, but, according to-the record, those who are citizens of Mississippi are- the real parties in interest. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 U.S. 586, 7 S. Ct. 341, 30 L. Ed. 538, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-v-holbrook-scotus-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack