Hancock v. Holbrook

119 U.S. 586, 7 S. Ct. 341, 30 L. Ed. 538, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1922
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 10, 1887·No. 1094·Published·Cited by 12 cases

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

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

119 U.S. 586 (Hancock v. Holbrook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen
135 F. 650 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Weldon v. Fritzlen
128 F. 608 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas, 1904)
Campbell v. Milliken
119 F. 982 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, 1902)
Bonner v. Meikle
77 F. 485 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1896)
Hanrick v. Hanrick
153 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Adelbert College of Western Reserve University v. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co.
47 F. 836 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio, 1891)
Anderson v. Bowers
43 F. 321 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa, 1890)
Young v. Parker's Administrator
132 U.S. 267 (Supreme Court, 1889)
Thouron v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co.
38 F. 673 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee, 1889)
Whelan v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.
35 F. 849 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1888)