Gill v. Frances Inv. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We are not convinced that it was error to deny the appellants’ motion to dismiss the suit for want of juris*883diction. It is contended that, while the bill was framed with the appellee, a citizen of Utah, as complainant, and against all of the defendants, including the trustee, as citizens of California, the trustee should have been aligned as a co-complainant, in which case the requisite diversity of citizenship would be lacking. It is to be observed that the deed to the trustee, while it conveys the legal title, also vests in the “legal holder of the note”…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. DoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Walden v. SkinnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Coder v. McPhersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Sacramento Bank v. AlcornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Follette v. Pacific Light & Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1922
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- National City Bank v. Coopers & LybrandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Miller v. Longs Drug Stores California, LLC d/b/a CVSDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2025