Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/356/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/356/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble, 255 U.S. 356 (1921)
Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble
No. 274
Submitted January 10, 1921
Decided March 7, 1921
255 U.S. 356
Syllabus
1. A suit brought against a fraternal benefit association and its officers by some in behalf of all of the members of a class of its beneficiaries so numerous that it would be impracticable to join all as parties to determine their rights as a class respecting the disposition and control of trust funds held by the association is cognizable by the district court where diversity of citizenship exists between the parties complainant and defendant, and the decree will bind all members
of the class, including those not parties who are co-citizen with the defendant. P. 255 U. S. 363.
2. Recognition of the jurisdiction to bind absentee in such cases is manifest in the omission from Equity Rule 38, promulgated in 1912, of the earlier provision making the decree without prejudice to their rights and claims. P. 255 U. S. 366.
3. Equity Rule 38, dealing specifically with this subject, controls Equity Rule 39. P. 255 U. S. 366.
4. Having rendered a decree in a class suit defining the right of a class of beneficiaries of a fraternal benefit associations, the district court has ancillary jurisdiction of a bill brought by the association against members of the class who are citizens of the same state as itself and were not parties to the original suit to restrain them from reopening the questions thus settled by suits against it in the state court. P. 255 U. S. 367.
264 F.2d 7 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
