Citation network
Camp Vs. Gress
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 02, 1919
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 308 (1919) U.S. Supreme Court Camp v. GressSearch
-
U.S. 308 (1919) Camp v. GressSearch
-
by service in that district if he is a citizen and resident of another state. P. 250 U. S. 311 . Smith v. LyonSearch
-
than that of the plaintiff. Hence, the diversity of citizenship requisite to federal jurisdiction existed. Sweeney v. CarterSearch
-
suit was brought, the privilege asserted would be supported by the very language of the statute. Macon Grocery Co. v. AtlanticSearch
-
plaintiff's residence. See In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221 , 160 U. S. 228 . In Smith v. LyonSearch
-
were resident. The court felt itself controlled largely by the construction which had been given in Strawbridge v. CurtissSearch
-
Adopting a like construction, this Court held in Smith v. LyonSearch
-
not be brought in a district in which some, but not all, of the plaintiffs resided. The rule declared in Strawbridge v. CurtissSearch
-
had been applied indiscriminately to plaintiffs and defendants, and after the decision in Smith v. LyonSearch
-
Geneva Furniture Co. v. KarpenSearch
-
U. S. 259 . The same assumption appears to have been made in Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. GibneySearch
-
himself of the objection that another defendant, who was a nonresident, was not liable to suit therein. And in Ladew v. TennesseeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
those who at common law was a necessary party defendant should not be found therein or voluntarily appear. Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
of the Revised Statutes. Compare Petri v. CreelmanSearch
-
that intention in unmistakable language. No reason appears therefore for refusing to apply here the rule of Smith v. LyonSearch
-
party, the failure to obtain jurisdiction over him would, of course, be fatal to the maintenance of the suit. Barney v. BaltimoreSearch
-
and one of the several joint contractors is not an indispensable party defendant in such a suit. Clearwater v. MeredithSearch
-
which may have resulted in prejudice could justify reversal of a judgment. Compare Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. MullinsSearch
-
are governed entirely by the acts of Congress, the common law, and the ancient English statutes. United States v. KingSearch
-
Boogher v. InsuranceSearch
-
St. Clair v. UnitedSearch
-
Francisco v. ChicagoSearch
-
United States v. IllinoisSearch
-
of the same act. Compare Ballew v. UnitedSearch
-
as the whole case is here on writ of certiorari and the objection was properly saved. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. KnightSearch
-
E.g., Turk v. IllinoisSearch
-
Excelsior Pebble Phosphate Co. v. BrownSearch
-
Revett v. CliseSearch
-
Schultz v. HighlandSearch
-
Tice v. HurleySearch
-
Lengel v. AmericanSearch
-
Bensinger Self-Adding Cash Register Co. v. NationalSearch
-
Cash Register Co., 42 F. 81 (Mo.). But see Jennings v. SmithSearch
-
Rawitzer v. WyattSearch
-
Doscher v. UnitedSearch
-
John D. Park & Sons Co. v. BruenSearch
-
New Jersey Steel & Iron Co. v. ChormannSearch
-
Goddard v. MaillerSearch
-
East Tennessee v. & G. R. Co. v. AtlantaSearch
-
Chesapeake & O. Coal Agency Co. v. FireSearch
-
Smith v. AtchisonSearch
-
Jewett v. BradfordSearch
-
United States Telegraph Co. v. GildersleveSearch
-
Leterman v. CharlottesvilleSearch
-
Groover v. WarfieldSearch
-
Joseph v. KnoxSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Camp v. GressSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial