[525] 14 Pet. 60 (1840).
[526] Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cr. 267 (1806). The Slocomb Case had to be dismissed because two members of the defendant corporation were citizens of the same State as the plaintiffs.
[527] 2 How. 497 (1844).
[528] Ibid. 558.
[529] Muller v. Dows, 94 U.S. 444, 445 (1877). This fiction had its beginning in Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329 (1854) and attained final approval in St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U.S. 545, 554 (1896).
[530] John Chipman Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law, 2d ed. (New York, 1927), 34.
[531] Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 (1856); Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Debolt, 18 How. 380 (1856).
[532] Gray, op. cit., 185-186. Although Justice Wayne criticized the Strawbridge Case as going too far, later developments in determining the citizenship of corporations, have enabled the Court to restore it to its original status. Consequently the rule still requires that to maintain a diversity proceeding all the parties on one side must be citizens of different States from all the parties on the other side. Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66 (1939); City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63 (1941).
[533] See Southern Realty Co. v. Walker, 211 U.S. 603 (1909), where two Georgians who conducted all of that business in Georgia created a sham corporation in South Dakota for the sole purpose of bringing suits in the federal courts which ordinarily would have been brought in the Georgia courts. Diversity jurisdiction was held not to exist because of collusion.
[534] Black and White Taxicab & T. Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & T. Co., 276 v. U.S. 518 (1928).