WINCHESTER
v.
LOUD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this 1883 case, the Supreme Court held that a suit seeking an accounting of trust property and removal of trustees must be remanded to state court because complete relief cannot be granted without the presence of all parties to the trust, and therefore federal diversity jurisdiction was not properly invoked through removal before the defendant filed an answer.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court;
The petition-for removal was filed before answer, and we must look, therefore, to the bill alone to determine what the controversy is. From this it appears that Henry M. Loud claims that the defendants, Wasey, Henry M. Loud, and Whit ing, bold certain real and personal property in trust to secure a debt owing by him and the’ defendant Gay to the defendant Winchester, and after the debt is paid for the use and benefit of himself, and Gay. He asks for an accounting by the trustees, the removal of Wasey and Whiting, and the appointment of others in their places; and after the debt is paid, a conveyance of what remains of the trust property in accordance with the terms of the trust. The case presents but a singles controversy, although it involves the determination of several questions. It may be that Winchester is the principal defendant in interest, but full and complete relief cannot be afforded in respect to the single cause of action, to wit, the trust, without the presence of all the parties to the suit. According to the averments in the bill all the defendants, except Henry M. Loud, deny the existence of the trust, and if that should be established, all the defendants are directly interested in the relief that is asked. The case falls clearly within the rule stated in Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407.
The order remanding the suit is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1892)…complete relief afforded as to the separate cause of action, without the presence of others originally made parties to the suit. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407; Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U. S. 576; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191; Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130; Shainwald v. Lewis, 108 U. S. 158; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187; Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571; Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389. As this court has repeatedly affirmed, not only in cases of joi…
-
Ayres & Others v. Wiswall & Others, 112 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1884)…hat term as used in the statute. They simply present different questions to be settled in determining the rights of the parties in respect to the one cause 'of action for which the suit was brought. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407 ; Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130; Shainwald v. Lewis, 108 U. S. 158. It follows that the suit was properly remanded, and the order of the Circuit Court to that effect is consequently Affirmed.…
-
In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1907)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meyer v. Constr. Co., 100 U.S. 457 (U.S. 1879)
- Barney v. Latham, 103 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1880)
- Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1881)