Mirabile Corp. v. Purvis

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Mirabile Corp. v. Purvis

143 F. 920, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 21, 1906

DocketNo. 32

StatusPublished

This text of 143 F. 920 (Mirabile Corp. v. Purvis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mirabile Corp. v. Purvis, 143 F. 920, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683 (circtedpa 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLLAND, District Judge.

This is a bill for an injunction, and sets forth that the plaintiff is a corporation and" a citizen of - the [921]*921state of New Jersey. One of the defendants is a citizen of Pennsylvania and inhabitant of this district. The other defendant, James E- Hays, is a citizen and inhabitant of New Jersey. Mr. Hays questions the jurisdiction of this court, because he is a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff.

When the jurisdiction is based upon diverse citizenship alone, the rule is that where there are more plaintiffs or defendants than one, all of the plaintiffs must be competent to sue, and all the defendants must be liable to be sued in the particular suit. Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315, 10 Sup. Ct. 303, 33 L. Ed. 635; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395, 17 Sup. Ct. 596, 41 L. Ed. 1049; Excelsior P. P. Co. v. Brown, 74 Fed. 321, 20 C. C. A. 428.

The plaintiff being a citizen of the state with the objecting defendant, the bill must be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

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

HOLLAND, District Judge.

This is a bill for an injunction, and sets forth that the plaintiff is a corporation and" a citizen of - the [921]*921state of New Jersey. One of the defendants is a citizen of Pennsylvania and inhabitant of this district. The other defendant, James E- Hays, is a citizen and inhabitant of New Jersey. Mr. Hays questions the jurisdiction of this court, because he is a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff.

When the jurisdiction is based upon diverse citizenship alone, the rule is that where there are more plaintiffs or defendants than one, all of the plaintiffs must be competent to sue, and all the defendants must be liable to be sued in the particular suit. Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315, 10 Sup. Ct. 303, 33 L. Ed. 635; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395, 17 Sup. Ct. 596, 41 L. Ed. 1049; Excelsior P. P. Co. v. Brown, 74 Fed. 321, 20 C. C. A. 428.

The plaintiff being a citizen of the state with the objecting defendant, the bill must be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F. 920, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirabile-corp-v-purvis-circtedpa-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack