Cross-bill
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 229 U.S. 123 - City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Company No 642 City and County of Denver · 1913Most cited · 232 citing opinions
jurisdiction
That the cross bill may be broader than the original and seek relief on a Federal ground does not affect the question of the circuit court's jurisdiction, for a cross bill is a mere auxiliary or dependency of the original, and is entertained and disposed of in the exercise of the jurisdiction invoked by the latter.
How the Supreme Court has restated “Cross-bill”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Cross-bill,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “Cross-bill”
Court decisions citing the 5 opinions that defined “Cross-bill” — 418 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 6 definitions, chronological · 1854–1913
It is manifest, from this brief reference to the doctrine, that any decision or decree in the proceedings upon the cross-bill is not a final decree in the suit, and, therefore, not the subject of an appeal to this court, under the 22d section of the judiciary act. The decree, whether maintaining or dismissing the bill, disposes of a proceeding simply incidental to the principal matter in litigation, and can only be reviewed on an appeal from the final decree disposing of the whole case.
decree not final, no appeal
- ORIGINAL
A cross-bill is brought by a defendant in a suit against the plaintiff in the same suit, or against other defendants in the same suit, or against both, touching the matters in question in the original bill. It is brought either to obtain a discovery of facts, in aid of the defence to the original bill, or to obtain full and complete relief to all parties, as to the matters charged in the original bill. It should not introduce new and distinct matters not embraced in the original bill, as they cannot be properly examined in that suit, but constitute the subject-matter of an original, independent suit. The cross-bill is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit, and a dependency upon it.
this is not a cross bill in the chancery sense of the words; the complainants, according to their own statement, were not defendants in the suit brought by the State. They cannot, therefore, file a cross bill, nor be regarded as defending themselves in that form of proceeding against the suit of the State.
a mere auxiliary suit, and a dependency of the original. It may be brought by a defendant against the plaintiff in the same suit, or against other defendants, or against both, but it must be touching the matters in question in the bill
was but ancillary to and dependent upon the original suit—an appropriate proceeding for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction