Steigleder v. McQuesten
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. The bill filed in the Circuit Court by .the plaintiff, McQuesten, alleged her to be “a citizen of the United States and of the State of Massachusetts, and residing at Turners Falls in said State,” while'the defendants Steigleder and wife were alleged to be “ citizens of the State of Washington, and residing at the city of Seattle'in said State.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. The bill filed in the Circuit Court by .the plaintiff, McQuesten, alleged her to be “a citizen of the United States and of the State of Massachusetts, and residing at Turners Falls in said State,” while'the defendants Steigleder and wife were alleged to be “ citizens of the State of Washington, and residing at the city of Seattle'in said State.” The object of the suit was to obtain a decree adjudging defendants to be trustees for the plaintiff in respect of certain .real estate in King County, State of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Harlan
The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different States was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depended on citizenship. While under the judiciary act of 1789 an issue as to the fact of citizenship could only be made by plea in abatement, when the pleadings properly averred citizenship, the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, 472, c. 137, made it the duty of the Circuit Court, at any time in the progress of a cause, to dismiss the suit, if it was. satisfied either that it did not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Robertson v. CeaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Morris v. GilmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Defiance Water Co. v. DefianceSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by139 opinions
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Gus Poulos and A.G.P. Marketing v. Naas Foods, Incorporated and Ranks, Hovis, McDougall Plc Group (Rhm Holdings U.S.A. Incorporated)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Gilbert v. DavidSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Gregory Heinen v. Northrop GrummanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
134 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.