HANCOCK
v.
HOLBROOK
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.
A suit for removal from state court to federal court on grounds of prejudice or local influence under federal statute requires that all plaintiffs or all defendants be citizens of the state where the suit was brought and citizens of a different state from those seeking removal; the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's remand of the case because the defendant citizens of Mississippi, who were the real parties in interest, were citizens of the state where the suit was brought in Louisiana.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
. Mr. 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Des Moines Navigation & R.R. Co. v. Iowa Homestead Co., 123 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1887)…it as related to the Navigation and Railroad Company, originally, but as to the binding effect of the decree of this court so long as it remains in force, and is not judicially annulled, vacated, or set aside. It was decided in Hancock v. Holbrook, 119 U. S. 586, that if a suit, in which there was but one controversy, between a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought and la citizen of another State, was removed from a state court to a Circuit Court of the United States on the ground of “prejudice…
-
Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Ala. & Ga. Mfg. Co., 198 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1905)…lusive and cannot be upset by either of .them in any other tribunal on the mere ground that there was in fact no diverse citizenship. Skillern’s Executors v. May’s Executors, 6 Cranch, 267; McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192; Hancock v. Holbrook, 119 U. S. 586. In Des Moines Navigation Company v. Iowa Homestead Company, 123 U. S. 552, 557, we said: “It was settled by this court; at a very early day,’ that, although the judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts might be erroneous, if the records failed…
-
Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1892)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence