Home/Supreme Court/Strawbridge v. Curtiss

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

7 U.S. 267, 2 L. Ed. 435, 3 Cranch 267, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 331
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 13, 1806
StatusPublished
Cited by1,957 cases

This text of 7 U.S. 267 (Strawbridge v. Curtiss) 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
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267, 2 L. Ed. 435, 3 Cranch 267, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 331 (1806).

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. — The court has considered this case, and is of opinion, that the jurisdiction cannot be supported.

The words of the act of congress are, “ where an alien is a party, or the ■suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.” The court understands these expressions to mean, that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts. That is, that where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in those courts.

But the court does not mean to give an opinion in the case where several parties represent several distinct interests, *and some of those parties r,... are, and others are not, competent to sue, or liable to be sued, in the *- •courts of the United States.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Janney v. NSK America Corporation
M.D. Tennessee, 2022
Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Sadek
809 F. Supp. 2d 235 (S.D. New York, 2011)
City of Merced Redevelopment Agency v. ExxonMobil Corp.
674 F. Supp. 2d 494 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Umlic Consolidated v. Spectrum Financial Services Corporation
665 F. Supp. 2d 528 (W.D. North Carolina, 2009)
Urquhart v. Wertheimer
646 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D. Massachusetts, 2009)
Wagenmaker v. Amica Mutual Insurance
601 F. Supp. 2d 411 (D. Rhode Island, 2009)
Asplund v. IPCS WIRELESS, INC.
602 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Iowa, 2008)
Colon v. Blades
570 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Puerto Rico, 2008)
Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC v. Segway Inc.
519 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D. Michigan, 2007)
Huber v. Taylor
519 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2007)
McKinnes v. American International Group, Inc.
420 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (M.D. Alabama, 2006)
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche
546 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Ntsebeza v. Citigroup, Inc.
346 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Vaka v. EMBRAER-EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE AERONAUTICA
303 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S.D. Florida, 2003)
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Acusport, Inc.
271 F. Supp. 2d 435 (E.D. New York, 2003)
Impuls I.D. Internacional, S.L. v. Psion-Teklogix Inc.
234 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (S.D. Florida, 2002)
Moody National Bank of Galveston v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance
193 F. Supp. 2d 995 (S.D. Texas, 2002)
CFSC CONSORTIUM, LLC v. Ferreras-Goitia
198 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Puerto Rico, 2002)
Ferry v. Bekum America Corp.
185 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (M.D. Florida, 2002)
Eichmann v. Hunter Automated MacHinery, Inc.
167 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 U.S. 267, 2 L. Ed. 435, 3 Cranch 267, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strawbridge-v-curtiss-scotus-1806.