Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, D. J.
(after* stating the facts as above). Under Equity Rule 30 (201 Fed. v, 118 C. C. A. v), there would cqncededly be no objection to the counterclaim if substantive jurisdiction existed. However, there is not the necessary diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants, and therefore the counterclaim will lie only if ancillary to the main controversy; the rule being incapable of extending the constitutional jurisdiction of the District Court. The question therefore is this: Is' it necessary to a complete disposition of the subject-matter of the bill and to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Raphael v. TraskSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Cleveland Engineering Co. v. Galion Dynamic Motor Truck Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1917
- McDearmott Commission Co. v. Board of TradeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Board of Trade v. PriceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Moore v. New York Cotton ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Carter Oil Co. v. WoodDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 1940