Strawbridge v. Curtiss
Case Overview
CITATION
ARGUED ON
DECIDED ON
DECIDED BY
7 U.S. 267 (1806)
Feb. 12, 1806
Feb. 13, 1806
Legal Issue
Does diversity jurisdiction require complete diversity among all the parties to a suit and not just diversity between some of the parties?
Holding
Yes, to qualify for diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity among all the parties to the case.
Syllabus
If there be two or more joint plaintiffs, and two or more joint defendants, each of the plaintiffs must be capable of suing each of the defendants in the courts of the United States to sustain the jurisdiction of the court.
The Court understands the expressions in the act of Congress giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States “when an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state” 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, 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.
Background
This case arose from an appeal of a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, which dismissed the complainants’ bill in chancery for lack of jurisdiction. It was alleged that some of the complainants were citizens of the State of Massachusetts. The defendants were also stated to be citizens of the same state, excepting Curtiss, who was averred to be a citizen of the State of Vermont, and upon whom the subpoena was served in that state.
The question on appeal was whether the diversity of citizenship requirement for Subject Matter jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.
Summary
Unanimous decision for Strawbridge
Strawbridge
Curtiss
Chase
Paterson
Cushing
Marshall
Johnson
Washington
Opinion of the Court
In a brief opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall held that diversity jurisdiction could not be supported in this case. Justice Marshall first pointed to the rule past by Congress, which states that “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.”
Justice Marshall explained the Court’s interpretation of Congress’ diversity requirement, writing that they understand it “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.”