In Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806) 7 U.S. 267, prior to the adoption of the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, the Supreme Court noted the possibility for overturning the complete diversity requirement through the use of ancillary jurisdiction. "A plaintiff could defeat the statutory requirement of complete diversity by the simple expedient of suing only those defendants who were of diverse citizenship and waiting for them to implead nondiverse defendants." The Supreme Court construed the original Judiciary Act's diversity provision to require complete diversity of citizenship. The Supreme Court, when faced with an issue of diversity jurisdiction, first stated the rule of "complete diversity" when it held that a federal court could not exercise diversity jurisdiction when any opposing parties were citizens of the same state. The Supreme Court interpreted the original Judiciary Act's diversity pro vision to require complete diversity of citizenship, and the Court has adhered to that statutory interpretation ever since. The law has been settled since the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Strawbridge v. Curtiss, that to confer federal jurisdiction by reason of diversity, the citizenship of all of the plaintiffs must be different than the citizenship of every defendant. To maintain a diversity suit in federal court, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants. Chief Justice Marshall said: "The court understands these expressions to mean, that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued in the federal courts. That is, that where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue or liable to be sued, in those courts." The Court held that the diversity requirement is satisfied only if there is "complete diversity" among the plaintiffs and the defendants.