Supreme Court of the United States, 1910

Weir v. Rountree

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 28, 1910 · Per Curiam

216 U.S. 607; 30 S. Ct. 418; 54 L. Ed. 635; 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1929 (United States Reports)

Counsel

■Mr, Eugene F. Ware for the appellee* in support of the-motion., Mr.. William C. Scarritt for the appellants in opposition theretS®..

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

O'Brien v. Rockefeller (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1916)
Roman Catholic Church of St. Anthony of Padua v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1915)
Gardiner Investment Co. v. Jackson Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1915)
Ritterbusch v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
Raphael v. Wasatch & Jordan Valley Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
Mound City Co. v. Castleman (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Bill1 was filed by the express company to restrain Mrs. Rountree from bringing suit against the company, which was directed te be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because there was no- diversity of citizenship and no Federal ground for jurisdiction. Rountree v. Adams Express Co., 165 Fed. Rep. 152. From this decree no appeal was taken.

A second suit on the same alleged cause of action was then brought in the name of the officers of the company, Levi C. Weir and others, alleging their diverse citizenship. The second suit was dismissed by the Circuit Court and carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the latter court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court. Weir v. Rountree, 173 Fed. Rep. 776.

This'appeal was then prosecuted, but we are of opinion that it cannot be maintained. Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138; Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 477. If the allegations which set up" diversity, of citizenship were stricken from the bill, the *608 Federal court would have had no jurisdiction. Being relied on, the'decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final.

Appeal dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.