Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 2 L. Ed. 629 (1808). · Go Syfert
Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 2 L. Ed. 629 (1808). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
165 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 50 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee (scotus, 1980-05-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee (2×)
SCOTUS · 1980 · confidence medium
Most assuredly, we did not do so merely to reaffirm, ante, at 462, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's ruling from the bench in Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306, 308 (1808), to the effect that aliens serving respectively as residuary legatee and representative of an estate, "although they sue as trustees," were entitled to bring a federal diversity action against a Georgia citizen.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Corabi v. Auto Racing, Inc. (4×) also: Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 1959 · confidence medium
Such decisions of the Supreme Court as Coal Company v. Blatchford, 1870, 11 Wall. 172 , 78 U.S. 172 , 20 L.Ed. 179 , and Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 1808, 4 Cranch 306 , 8 U.S. 306 , 2 L.Ed. 629 , cited in Coal Company v. Blatchford, 11 Wall, at page 175, 78 U.S. at page 175 , are not directly helpful for Section 1359 or its predecessor was apparently not before the Supreme Court in these cases. .
cited Cited as authority (rule) First National Bank v. Stansbury
Cal. Ct. App. · 1923 · confidence medium
(Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 306, 308 [ 2 L.
discussed Cited "see" BancorpSouth Bank v. Hazelwood Logistics Center, LLC (2×)
8th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 462 , 100 S.Ct. 1779 (citing Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 306 , 308, 2 L.Ed. 629 (1808)).
discussed Cited "see" Liu v. Westchester County Medical Center (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 306, 2 L.Ed. 629 (1808); Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co, 284 U.S. 183 , 52 S.Ct. 84 , 76 L.Ed. 233 (1931).
discussed Cited "see" Miller v. Perry (2×)
E.D.N.C. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306 , 2 L.Ed. 629 ; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 669 , 5 L.Ed. 705 ; Mexican Central R.
discussed Cited "see" Lang v. Elm City Construction Company
D. Conn. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
I 28 U.S.C. § 1859 The citizenship of the fiduciary —whether executor, administrator, trustee or guardian — and not that of the decedent, beneficiary or ward, is looked to in determining diversity jurisdiction. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, f 17.04, p. 1313 (2d ed. 1948); see Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch.) 306, 2 L.Ed. 629 (1808).
examined Cited "see" Corabi v. Auto Racing, Inc. (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 1808, 4 Cranch 306 , 8 U.S. 306 , 308, 2 L.Ed. 629 ; Rule 17, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. 2 This is a rule of procedure which governs actions such as that at bar in the United States district courts.
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Sperling (2×)
SCOTUS · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306 ; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 669 ; Mexican Central R.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. Nevada Speedway, LLC
D. Nev. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 8 U.S. 306 , 314-15; Trustees of the Nev.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hong Kong Deposit & Guaranty Co. v. Hibdon (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Clarkson Co., Ltd. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 , 628 (2d Cir.1976); accord Waxman v. Kealoha, 296 F.Supp. 1190, 1192 (D.Hawaii 1969); see also Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 306 , 307-08, 2 L.Ed. 629 (1808) (citizenship of French plaintiff trustees controls rather than the Georgia citizenship of those they represent). . 544 F.2d 624 , 628 (2d Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." HONG KONG DEPOSIT & GUAR. CO. v. Hibdon (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
III, § 2. [3] 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) (1982). [4] "[W]e have repeatedly held that representatives may stand upon their own citizenship in the federal courts irrespectively of the citizenship of the persons whom they represent ..." New Orleans v. Gaines's Administrator, 138 U.S. 595, 606 , 11 S.Ct. 428, 431 , 34 L.Ed. 1102 (1891); see Navarro Savings Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461 , 100 S.Ct. 1779, 1782 , 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980); Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., Inc., 284 U.S. 183, 186 , 52 S.Ct. 84, 85 , 76 L.Ed. 233 (1931); Mexican Central R.R. v. Eckman, 187 U.S. 429, 434 , 23 S.Ct. 211, …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thames v. Mississippi Ex Rel. Shoemaker (2×)
5th Cir. · 1941 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, 47 Corpus Juris 27, 28. [29] Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306, 308 , 2 L.Ed. 629 ; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 668 , 5 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CHAPPEDELAINE, Residuary Legatee, AND CLOSRIVIERRE, Adm'r de bonis non, against DECHENAUX, Executor of DUMOUSSAY, Defendant.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1808.
2 L. Ed. 629
Cited by 96 opinions  |  Published

[*308] P.B. Key, for the defendant.

Winder, for the complainants.

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in a suit in equity.

The bill states that the complainants' testator and the defendant's testator, together with three others, viz. Boisfeillet, Du Bignon, and Grand Closmesle, became joint purchasers of the islands of Sapclo, Blackbeard, Jekyll, and half of St. Catharine, on the coast of Georgia; that Dumoussay was the acting partner, and kept all the accounts, &c. That an account was stated and signed by the two testators, Chappedelaine and Dumoussay, on the 30th of April, 1792, by which the former acknowledged a balance of 667l. 10s. 1 3-4d. due to the latter; but that the account was erroneous in sundry items particularly set forth in the bill; that there were sundry debits which had accrued since that settlement, and that Chappedelaine had been obliged by a suit in equity to refund to Boisfeillet a large sum which Dumoussay had overcharged him. That Dechenaux was the executor of the estate of Chappedelaine as well as of Dumoussay, and as executor of Chappedelaine had defended the suit of Boisfeillet. The bill contains a prayer that the defendant may account touching all monies due on rectifying the errors; and for all other sums due by Dumoussay in his life-time, not credited nor accounted for, or which have come to the hands of the defendant, and that he pay over such balance as shall appear on settlement of all accounts, and for general relief. The defendant pleaded the settled account in bar of so much of the bill as sought to open the account, and by answer denied all fraud and error.

[*307] Upon hearing, the court below ordered a reference to auditors, with directions "to make a general statement of accounts between the parties, rejecting any erroneous charges which may appear in their settlement, and adding such as may have been omitted."

The auditors, on the 23d of April, 1805, instead of stating an account, reported that they found "a balance due from the defendant to the complainants, including interest upon the liquidated account up to this date, fifteen thousand five hundred and eighty-six dollars and twenty-two cents." They stated that they had not taken into consideration a claim of the complainants of 1,000l. which the estate of Chappedelaine was condemned to pay to Boisfeillet by decree of the court, nor their claim for indemnity for damages said to have been sustained by sale of lands, conceiving those claims not submitted to them, but reserved for the decision of the court.

Exceptions being taken to this report, the court ordered the auditors to "make a statement showing the items of the general account, which they rejected, in whole or in part, and the reasons of their rejections, and also such items as were added as omissions, and their reasons for so doing."

In obedience to this order, the auditors made an explanatory report, whereupon the court decreed that 604l. 6s. and 579l. 8s. 1d. be deducted from the liquidated account of the 30th of April, 1792; that interest be allowed on the balance at eight per cent from that date, and that the defendant pay out of the assets that balance and interest, and the further sum of 3,823 dollars, being the amount stated by the auditors as having accrued since the 30th of April, 1792, and costs.

The errors assigned in the record were,

1. That the bill was insufficient in law.

2. That the court had not jurisdiction, because, although the bill states the complainants to be French citizens, and the defendant a citizen of Georgia, yet the two testators were citizens of Georgia.

[*308] 3. That I. Trubert, who is stated in the answer to be residuary legatee of Dumoussay, was not made a party; and because the other legatees were not made parties.

4. That the stated account has been partially opened, and abatements made to the injury of the legatee.

5. That the exceptions to the report of the auditors ought to have been sustained.