Citation network
Alexander Vs. Hillman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 09, 1935
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. 222 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Alexander v. HillmanSearch
-
U.S. 222 (1935) Alexander v. HillmanSearch
-
Making any inhabitant of Pennsylvania a party would destroy diversity of citizenship and oust jurisdiction. Salem Co. v. Manufacturers'Search
-
with power so limited, the West Virginia Tower Hill was the only necessary party. Tower Hill Connellsville Coke Co. v. PiedmontSearch
-
the District Court had jurisdiction to enter that decree has been finally adjudged. Tower Hill-Connellsville Coke Co. v. PiedmontSearch
-
Undoubtedly the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter -- i.e., the claims and counterclaims. White v. EwingSearch
-
Pope v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Peck v. ElliottSearch
-
their interest warrant, to challenge the receivers' acts and the demands of others claiming as creditors. Stewart v. DunhamSearch
-
Elkins v. FirstSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Continental Trust Co. v. ToledoSearch
-
Jones & Laughlins v. SandsSearch
-
Gasquet v. FidelitySearch
-
Trust & Safety Vault Co.,, 57 F. 80, 83. Acme White Lead & Color Works v. RepublicSearch
-
Motor T. Co., 285 F. 88, 90. And see Youtsey v. HoffmanSearch
-
Cockrill v. CooperSearch
-
respondents are to be dealt with just as if they were technically trustees for creditors and stockholders. Koehler v. BlackSearch
-
Wardell v. RailroadSearch
-
Geddes v. AnacondaSearch
-
jurisdiction of District Courts, but merely confers a personal privilege that may be waived. General Investment Co. v. LakeSearch
-
Lee Page 296 U. S. 241 v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
to the contrary notwithstanding. See General Elec. Co. v. MarvelSearch
-
does not purport to cover, and was not prescribed for, situations such as that here presented. Chandler & Price Co. v. BrandtjenSearch
-
least similar and equally strong, reasons as those that constitute the foundation of the rule. Cf. American Mills Co. v. AmericanSearch
-
Moore v. NewSearch
-
United States v. UnionSearch
-
Greene v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Interurban R. Co., 244 U. S. 499 , 244 U. S. 520 . Cf. Hartford Accident Co. v. SouthernSearch
-
more clearly a part of the subject matter of the main suit than recovery of all that to the res belongs. Gasquet v. FidelitySearch
-
Hollander v. HeaslipSearch
-
with the rule governing recoupment and set-off that formerly was strictly applied. Cf. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. KirvenSearch
-
Merchants' Heat & L. Co. v. JamesSearch
-
defensive, then its determinations as to those parts would not be binding as to the rest. Portland Wood Pipe Co. v. SlickSearch
-
as to procedure that necessarily belongs to courts of equity administering receiverships. See Portland Wood Pipe Co. v. SlickSearch
-
with petitions for certiorari. 280 U.S. 607. 290 U.S. 675. We take judicial notice of them. National Fire Ins. Co. v. ThompsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Alexander v. HillmanSearch
-
Salem Co. v. Manufacturers'Search
-
Tower Hill Connellsville Coke Co. v. PiedmontSearch
-
White v. EwingSearch
-
Stewart v. DunhamSearch
-
Acme White Lead & Color Works v. RepublicSearch
-
Youtsey v. HoffmanSearch
-
Koehler v. BlackSearch
-
General Investment Co. v. LakeSearch
-
See General Elec. Co. v. MarvelSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial