Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1806

Strawbridge v. Curtiss

7 U.S. 267 | 2 L. Ed. 435 | 3 Cranch 267 | 1806 U.S. LEXIS 331

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Strawbridge established the complete-diversity rule for jointly interested parties: federal diversity jurisdiction fails when any necessary party on one side lacks the required diverse citizenship from a necessary party on the other.

Background

The case reached the Supreme Court after a federal lower court entered a decree that the plaintiffs challenged. The reported opinion does not describe the underlying transaction or the parties’ citizenships in detail; it focuses instead on whether the federal courts had jurisdiction under the diversity provision of the Judiciary Act.

The jurisdictional dispute arose because the parties included persons with joint interests, and not every person on one side was shown to be eligible to sue or be sued in federal court against every person on the other side. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decree.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Judiciary Act permits federal diversity jurisdiction when parties sharing a joint interest include persons who are not competent to sue or be sued in federal court.

Holding

No. For a joint interest, every person represented in that interest must be competent to sue or liable to be sued in federal court.

Reasoning

Chief Justice Marshall read the Judiciary Act’s language—covering suits between a citizen of the forum state and a citizen of another state—to require complete eligibility among the parties to each opposing joint interest. The statute did not permit federal jurisdiction merely because some parties on opposing sides had the requisite diverse citizenship.

Where an interest is joint, the Court treated all persons holding that interest as necessary to the jurisdictional inquiry. Thus, each person on the plaintiff side of a joint interest had to be entitled to sue each person on the defendant side in federal court, and each person on a jointly held defendant interest had to be subject to suit there.

The Court expressly limited its decision. It did not decide the different situation in which several parties possess several distinct interests and only some of them satisfy the federal-court citizenship requirement. Because the case involved a joint interest that did not meet the Court’s all-parties requirement, jurisdiction could not be sustained and the decree was affirmed.