HANCOCK v. HOLBROOK

HANCOCK v. HOLBROOK. APPEAL FROM THE OIROUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Submitted December 13, 1886. Decided January 10, 1887. .A suit cannot be removed from a State Court to a Circuit Court of the United States on the ground of prejudice or local influence, under sub-seetion'3 of § 639 Rev. Stat., unless all the plaintiffs or all the defendants .are citizens of the state in which the -suit was brought, and of a state other than that of which those petitioning for the removal are citizens. This was an appeal from an order- of the Circuit Court' remanding to a State Court a cahse removed thence, to the' Circuit Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.' Mr. J. D. Bouse and Mr. William Grcmt for appellant: Mr. Thomas J-. Semmes and Mr. Robert Mott for appellees.' [MAJORITY — . Me. Chief Justice Waite] . Me. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. The order remanding this ease is affirmed. A suit cannot ■ be removed from a State Court to a Circuit Court of the United States under subsection 3 of .§ 639 of the Kevised Stat-' utes on the ground, pf “ prejudice or local influence,” unless ¿11 the plaintiffs or all the defendants are citizens of the state in which the suit was brought, and of a state other than thát of which those petitioning for the removal are citizens. Here -it appears that Hancock, the'plaintiff, oh whose petition the removal was had, is a citizen of New York,- and Eliza Jane' Holbrook and G-eorge' Nicholson,.two ,of the defendants, and those principally.interested.in-the.litigation, citizens of'Missis,-sippi, while R1W. Holbrook and Richard Fitzgerald, the other defendants, are alone citizens of Louisiana, where the suit y/as brought. These Louisiana defendants are necessary partiés to' the.suit, but, according to-the record, those who are citizens of Mississippi are- the real parties in interest. Affirmed.