3 Cr. 267, 268, 2 L. 435, STRAWBRIDGE v. CURTISS.

Jurisdiction of Federal courts.- Each plaintiff must be capable of suing each defendant in that court, p. 267.

The number of citing cases show this to be a leading case of considerable importance. The following are the various applications of the principle which they make: New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 95, 4 L. 45, holding citizen of a territory cannot sue a citizen of State in these courts, though joined with parties capable of so suing; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 457, n., 5 L. 661, holding court will not allow its jurisdiction to be ousted by joinder or nonjoinder of formal parties; Commercial, etc., Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 64, 10 L. 356, holding all the corporators must be citizens of a different State from the other party; in dissenting opinion, Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 16 How. 340, 14 L. 964, majority holding that averment, defendants are a corporation, created by legislature of Maryland, gives the court jurisdiction; Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 469, 15 L. 461, holding joinder of formal parties cannot oust courts of jurisdiction; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 174, 20 L. 180, holding executors not qualified because of citizenship, cannot sue, although those they represent are qualified; Case of the Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 574, 21 L. 918, holding, where one defendant is citizen of plaintiff's State, court has no jurisdiction; Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone, 121 U. S. 632, 30 L. 1020, 7 S. Ct. 1010, 1011, holding, if necessary party on both sides is citizen of same State, court has no jurisdiction; Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 318, 319, 320, 33 L. 636, 637, 10 S. Ct. 304; S. C., 38 Fed. 54, plaintiffs citizens of different States cannot unite in a suit in a State of which either is a citizen; Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U. S. 195, 38 L. 686, 14 S. Ct. 836, holding all plaintiffs and defendants must be citizens of different States; Hooe v. Jameson, 166 U. S. 397, 398, 41 L. 1050, 17 S. Ct. 597, holding citizen of District of Columbia cannot maintain an action, though joined with a competent person; Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co., 3 Blatchf. 88, F. C. 6,818, holding plaintiffs cannot be citizens of different States; Hatch v. The Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 113, F. C. 6,204, holding no defendant can be citizen of same State as plaintiff; Brigham v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 241, F. C. 1,874, if suit is not maintainable without proper parties, and bringing them in would oust court of jurisdiction, action must be dismissed; Petterson v. Chapman, 13 Blatchf. 399, F. C. 11,042, holding no plaintiff and defendant can be of same State; Sawyer v. Switzerland Marine Ins. Co., 14 Blatchf 452, F. C. 12,408, holding requisite jurisdictional citizenship must exist as to each plaintiff; Case v. Douglas, 1 Dill. 300, F. C. 2,491, holding all the plaintiffs must be shown to be citizens of another State; Barney v. Baltimore, 1 Hughes, 121, F. C. 1,029, holding citizenship of one of the suitors in District of Columbia does not give jurisdiction; Ward v. Arredondo, 1 Paine, 412, F. C. 17,148,

holding joining of nominal parties, without requisite citizenship, does not oust court; Moffat v. Saley, 2 Paine, 105, F. C. 9,688, holding plaintiffs must be citizens of same State; Smith v. Rines, 2 Sumn. 345, 347, F. C. 13,100, Circuit Court has jurisdiction where there are joint defendants, if all petition for removal; Bank of Cumberland v. Willis, 3 Sumn. 473, F. C. 885, all of the incorporators must be citizens of another State; New Jersey v. Babcock, 4 Wash. 346, F. C. 10,163, holding, if State be a party, the Circuit Court is without jurisdiction and will remand cause, even after it has been docketed; Kirkpatrick v. White, 4 Wash. 598, F. C. 7,850, holding all of the corporators must be citizens of another State; Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Wood. & M. 38, F. C. 10,123, where suit could be maintained alone against one defendant, that others were citizens of same State as plaintiff, was not fatal to jurisdiction; Saginaw Gas Light Co. v. Saginaw, 28 Fed. 531, holding no plaintiff or defendant can be of same State; Kane v. Indianapolis, 82 Fed. Rep. 772, holding one joint defendant cannot have cause removed, unless other defendant has capacity; Excelsior Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Brown, 74 Fed. 324, holding Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, where plaintiffs are nonresidents, but only one defendant is a resident; Calderwood v. Braly, 28 Col. 99, holding all the defendants must be citizens of another State to authorize a removal; Howland Coal, etc., Works v. Brown, 13 Bush (Ky.), 687, holding court had no jurisdiction where corporation, one of defendants, was of same State as plaintiff; Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 192, 8 Am. Rep. 315, if a defendant or plaintiff, real party in interest, is of same State, court has no jurisdiction; North River Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Johns. Ch. 303, holding, each incorporator must have jurisdictional citizenship; Schuyler v. Pelisser, 3 Edw. Ch. 192, holding though Federal court has no jurisdiction, it cannot be enjoined by State court; James v. Thurston, 6 R. I. 431, holding presence of co-plaintiff of different State, entitled to decree, fatal to jurisdiction; Robb v. Parker, 3 S. C. 70, holding court has no jurisdiction where plaintiffs are citizens of different States, as also in Belknap v. Northern R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 719; Beery v. Irick, 22 Gratt. 487, 12 Am. Rep. 541, if any plaintiff and defendant are of same State, case is not removable; Tuckerman v. Bigelow, 24 F. C. 282, holding where interests are joint each plaintiff must be competent to sue each defendant. Cited in West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 197, F. C. 17,424, approvingly in Eames v. Carlisle, 3 N. H. 131. See also note in 33 Am. Dec. 400, and 12 Am. Rep. 545.

Distinguished in Louisville R. R. v. Letson, 2 How. 554, 11 L. 376, declaring main case was carried too far, and that a corporation is a citizen of the State under whose laws it is organized, though corporators be citizens of other States; Northern R. R. Co. v. Mich. C. R. R., 15 How. 248, 14 L. 681, where it is declared to have been overruled; Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 205, 23 L. 831, where it is

declared to have been obviated by statute; Sands v. Smith, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 371, 376, 1 Dill. 293, 297, F. C. 12,305, holding that an action brought against a citizen of that State, and citizen of another State. latter voluntarily appearing, cognizable in United States courts; Pond v. Railroad Co., 12 Blatchf. 290, F. C. 11,265, holding defendant who is citizen of State where action is brought cannot object to jurisdiction because other defendant resides in a different State; Pegram v. United States, 1 Brock. 262, F. C. 10,906, holding that in an action against defendants, some of whom are nonresidents, judgment may be taken against the residents. Denied in Wiggins v. The Railway, 1 Hask. (Fox's Dec.) 126, 128, 129, 130, F. C. 17,626, holding Circuit Court has jurisdiction, though respondent is a nonresident, served in this State, and remaining respondents are residents. Distinguished in Florence, etc., Co. v. Grover, etc., Co., Holmes, 242, F. C. 4,883, holding under later act, one defendant may remove cause though others be citizens of same State as plaintiff; Doremas v. Bennet, 4 McLean, 225, F. C. 4,001, holding defendant cannot plead to jurisdiction because other defendants and plaintiff are citizens of same State; Wildes v. Parker, 3 Sumn. 596, F. C. 17,652, court doubting whether American citizen domiciled in foreign country is an alien. Denied in Heriot v. Davis, 2 Wood. & M. 231, 232, F. C. 6,404, holding that if respondent appears court has jurisdiction, though other respondents be citizens of same State as plaintiff. Distinguished in Froment v. Duclos, 30 Fed. 385, a case concerning a consul, and hence one where Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Denied in Zambrino v. Galveston Ry., 38 Fed. Rep. 451, holding that a corporation is presumed to be a citizen of the State where created; as also in Ysleta v. Canda, 67 Fed. 7, holding same of municipal corporation; Ex parte Andrew, 40 Ala. 646, 649, 651, holding where interests of parties are distinct, requisite citizenship need not be common; Home Ins. Co. v. Council, 50 Ga. 541, holding a foreign corporation to be an "inhabitant," and liable to same taxes as individuals; Renard v. Hargous, 13 N. Y. 265, holding an attachment authorized, though one partner was a nonresident; Cooke v. Bank, 52 N. Y. 110, 11 Am. Rep. 676, holding a corporation a citizen of State creating, irrespective of citizenship, incorporators; Cromwell v. Insurance Co., 2 Rich. L. 516, holding a corporation's residence is wherever its corporate business is; Hall v. Bank of Virginia, 14 W. Va. 619, holding a corporation is a citizen of State where created; State v. Railroad, 45 Wis. 593, holding a corporation to be a citizen of the State where its principal place of business is. Distinguished in Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N. Y. 582, where defendant was a consul, and Federal court had exclusive jurisdiction; Babcock v. Millard, 2 Fed. Cas. 299, where it was not an original suit; Taylor v. Rockefeller, 23 Fed. Cas. 795, holding cause may be removed under later act, though nominal plaintiffs and defendants be of same State.

8 Cr. 268-270, 2 L. 436, GORDON v. CALDCLEUGH.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

If State court decrees in favor

of right claimed under an act of congress, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on writ of error, p. 269.

Rule applied in Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 375, 12 L. 196; Roosevelt v. Meyer, 1 Wall. 517, 17 L. 502; Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 501, 84 L. 1014, 11 S. Ct. 387, holding court was without jurisdiction. Cited in Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 238, 40 L. 411, 16 S. Ct. 300, and Fleming v. Clark, 12 Allen, 196, in general discussion.

3 Cr. 270-282, 2 L. 436, MCFERRAN v. TAYLOR.

Vendor and vendee.-Vendor is bound in equity by description of property sold, given by himself, even though error therein be by innocent mistake, and is liable for the error, p. 281.

This holding is affirmed and applied in the following citing cases: Smith v. Richards, 13 Pet. 38, 10 L. 48, holding false affirmation of material fact, though innocently made, is good ground for rescission; Barnes v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. 90, 12 U. S. App. 1, permitting recovery on misrepresentation, without alleging knowledge or fraud; Moline Plow Co. v. Carson, 72 Fed. 392, 36 U. S. App. 448, holding vendor liable for misrepresentation when he ought to have known its truth; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Port. 138, holding an express warranty extends to all defects, known or unknown; Pitts v. Cottingham, 9 Port. 677, holding false representation gives vendee right to rescind; as also in Read v. Walker, 18 Ala. 333; Sears v. Hicklin, 13 Colo. 152, 21 Pac. 1024, holding material misrepresentation made by mistake, ground for relief, though vendee might have learned its falsity; Smith v. Mitchell, 6 Ga. 480, holding knowledge of maker of material misrepresentation immaterial; as also in Hammons v. Espy, 1 Wilson (Ind.), 538, and Borders v. Kattleman, 142 Ill. 104, 31 N. E. 21. Cited and applied in Cowger v. Gordon, 4 Blackf. 113, even if vendor believes misrepresentation to be true, he is liable; Frenzel v. Miller, 37 Ind. 13, 10 Am. Rep. 67, holding knowledge of maker of misrepresentation immaterial; as also in Wilcox v. Iowa Wesleyan University, 32 Iowa, 374, but purchaser must have relied on them; Waters v. Mattingly, 1 Bibb, 244, holding knowledge of maker of misrepresentation is immaterial; Bean v. Herrick, 12 Me. 269, 28 Am. Dec. 180, holding, though party making misrepresentation has no interest, he is liabíe; Taymon v. Mitchell, 1 Md. Ch. 499, if misrepresentation is material, knowledge of maker is immaterial; Parham v. Randolph, 4 How. (Miss.) 451, 35 Am. Dec. 405, holding any misrepresentation by vendor as to title is fraudulent; Rimer v. Dugan, 39 Miss. 483, 77 Am. Dec. 688, holding material misrepresentation, though innocently made, is binding; Owens v. Rector, 44 Mo. 393, holding knowledge of seller as to mis

representation, a material question of fact; Phillips v. Jones, 12 Neb. 215, 10 N. W. 709, holding vendor liable for misrepresentation, though made through mistake; Leavitt v. Sizer, 35 Neb. 85, 52 N. W. 833, holding party liable, though not knowing statement untrue; Hoock v. Bowman, 42 Neb. 84, 47 Am. St. Rep. 694, 60 N. W. 390, holding false description of property grounds for rescission of contract. Rule applied in Walsh v. Hall, 66 N. C. 241, holding defendant had right of rescission of contract induced by fraudulent misrepresentation; McCall v. Davis, 56 Pa. St. 435, 94 Am. Dec. 96, holding absence of wilful fraud in vendor will not relieve him from mistake; Donelson v. Weakley, 3 Yerg. 197, holding material misrepresentation authorizes rescission; Lewis v. McLemore, 10 Yerg. 209, holding party liable for misrepresentation of material fact, innocently made, upon similar facts as original case; also McMullin v. Sanders, 79 Va. 365, and Miner v. Medbury, 6 Wis. 309. Cited in note to 45 Am. Dec. 632.

Distinguished in Buford v. Guthrie, 14 Bush (Ky.), 694, where misrepresentation was as to title and title was made good; Brooks v. Hamilton, 15 Minn. 34, where party had opportunity to examine the goods; Erie, etc., Works v. Barber, 106 Pa. St. 141, 51 Am. Rep. 515, holding that to recover in action of deceit, defendant must have been guilty of some moral wrong; Smith v. Mariner, 5 Wis. 577, 68 Am. Dec. 78, where there was no contract, but representation was as to date of public sale.

Trial. Finding of jury, contradicting fact admitted by pleadings is to be disregarded, p. 280.

Rule applied in Grady v. Robinson, 28 Ala. 303, holding defendant cannot prove a fact which he failed to put in issue in his answer; Roth v. Miller, 15 S. & R. 105, holding verdict, contradicting a fact admitted in pleading, is to be disregarded.

Distinguished in Bright v. Haggin, Hardin, 538, holding that defendant denying contract in bill, but setting up one under different circumstances, does not have to prove the circumstances.

Miscellaneous citations.- Cited in Keatts v. Rector, 1 Ark. 425; Hollingshead v. McKenzie, 8 Ga. 459; Woodman v. Freeman, 25 Me. 554, 560, but not in point.

3 Cr. 283-293, 2 L. 441, WILSON v. SPEED.

Evidence. Assignee of pre-emption warrant is competent to prove facts as to nature of the assignment, where these facts do not tend to support title of party producing him, pp. 290, 291.

Caveat. Caveat in Kentucky, in part supported by proof, ought not to be dismissed, but on the merits, p. 292.

Miscellaneous citations.- Cited in Sarchet v. The Sloop Davis, Crabbe, 191, F. C. 12,357, but not in point.