Legal Opinion

Hannan v. Slush

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided July 26, 1922No. 461PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the bill of •complaint herein on the grounds that defendant Luella Hannan is not .a citizen of Michigan nor resident of this district, and that, as the bill -on its face shows that she is an indispensable party, and that the jurisdiction of this court is based upon alleged diversity of citizenship, said bill should be dismissed for lack of the necessary jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs rest their arguments in support of the existence of such jurisdiction upon the contentions: (1) That the said defendant is not an indispensable party to this suit; and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Camp v. GressSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  2. Waterloo Creamery v. National Bank of CommerceDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1822

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stapleton Nat. Bank v. Union Trust Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1923
  2. Hannan v. Matthew Slush, Security Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API