Supreme Court of the United States
Strawbridge v. Curtiss
7 U.S. 267 · 2 L. Ed. 435 · 3 Cranch 267
Decided February 13, 1806
ReversedReversed / overruled family (overruled) by 1 citing case from a court with authority over this one.
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed a decree dismissing a bill in chancery for want of federal jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall held that under the Judiciary Act's diversity clause, where there are two or more joint plaintiffs and two or more joint defendants, each plaintiff must be capable of suing each defendant in the federal courts; because some complainants and some defendants were citizens of Massachusetts, the presence of a single Vermont-citizen defendant could not sustain jurisdiction. The Court expressly reserved opinion on suits where several parties represent several distinct interests. No separate opinions were filed.
Holdings
- Whether complete diversity of citizenship is required among all joint parties for jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act's diversity clause.. Yes. Where there are 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 support the jurisdiction; because some complainants and some defendants were citizens of Massachusetts, the jurisdiction could not be sustained notwithstanding that one defendant, Curtiss, was a citizen of Vermont. 7 U.S. 267
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
1,836 opinions cite this case
Reversed
The Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Rail-Road Company, Plaintiffs in Error v. Thomas W. Letson, Defendant, 43 U.S. 497. declares Strawbridge v. Curtis carried too far and not to be followed
Reversed
The Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Rail-Road Company, Plaintiffs in Error v. Thomas W. Letson, Defendant, 43 U.S. 497. same as Strawbridge overruled
Cited
Holli Carter v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC. Cited for the foundational complete diversity requirement in diversity jurisdiction.
Cited
Alexander Garcia Reyes v. Papucho Transport Service Corp., Exactus Logistic, Inc., and John Doe. The opinion cites this authority as support for its statement of the complete-diversity rule.
Cited
Kelly v. Foertsch. The court cites it in support of the complete-diversity rule.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
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.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Errol P. Howery, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee243 F.3d 912 (2001)
- University of South Alabama, Plaintiff-Appellant v. the American Tobacco Company, Defendants-Appellees168 F.3d 405 (1999)
- Katie Lowery, Richard Lowery, Johnny Jones, Angela Jones, Dennis Wingo, and Other Plaintiffs as Listed on Complaint…483 F.3d 1184 (2007)
- The Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Rail-Road Company, Plaintiffs in Error v. Thomas W. Letson, Defendant43 U.S. 497 (1844)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire386 U.S. 523 (1967)