Wilson v. Blodget

30 F. Cas. 111, 4 McLean 363
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana·Decided May 15, 1848·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

McLEAN, Circuit Justice.

This case was removed from the state court under the act of congress, and a motion is now made to dismiss it, on the ground that some of the defendants are citizens of the state. Blodg-et & Co. are citizens of Massachusetts; and it appearing that the defendants, who are citizens of the state, are mere agents, and against whom no decree is prayed,. and whose names may be stricken out of the pleadings, as they are not necessary parties, it is contended the jurisdiction should be sustained. It is clear that no suit can be removed from the state court by either party where some of the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, are citizens of the state where the suit is brought, and others of a different state. The motion to dismiss is granted.

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

Wilson v. Blodget, 30 F. Cas. 111, 4 McLean 363 (circtdin 1848).

30 F. Cas. 111 (Wilson v. Blodget) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas v. Lewis
12 F. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)
Pugsley v. Freedman's Savings & Trust Co.
2 Tenn. Ch. R. 130 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1874)
Martin, Cobb & Co. v. Coons
24 La. Ann. 169 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1872)
Robb v. Parker
3 S.C. 60 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1871)
Fisk v. Union Pacific Railroad
10 Abb. Pr. 457 (S.D. New York, 1871)
Bryant v. Rich
106 Mass. 180 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)
Ex parte Andrews
40 Ala. 639 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)
Fairchild v. Durand
8 Abb. Pr. 305 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1859)
Shelby v. Hoffman
7 Ohio St. (N.S.) 450 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1857)