Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Stevens v. Nichols

130 U.S. 230

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1889-04-01
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “[D]iversity of citizenship must exist both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.”
  • “The case was not removable from the state court, unless it appeared ... that at the commencement of the action, as well as when the removal was asked, [defendants] were ... [diverse].”
  • “It is well established that when diversity of citizenship is the basis for removal jurisdiction, it must exist both at the time the original action is filed in state court and at the time removal is sought.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Stevens v. Nichols. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
101 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Removal In cases where federal jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such citizenship, or the facts that in legal intendment constitute it, must be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or must appear affirmatively and with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. 130 U.S. at 232 (citing Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 649)
  2. Civil Procedure — Removal A case is not removable from a state court on the ground of diverse citizenship unless it appears affirmatively in the petition for removal, or elsewhere in the record, that the parties were citizens of different states both at the commencement of the action and at the time the removal was sought. 130 U.S. at 232
  3. Civil Procedure — Removal A petition for removal that alleges the citizenship of the parties only as of the date it was filed is defective, and where the record does not otherwise show that the diverse citizenship also existed at the commencement of the action, the Circuit Court is without jurisdiction and cannot consider the merits of the case. 130 U.S. at 232
  4. Civil Procedure — Removal Where it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction upon removal, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to send it back to the state court, with costs assessed against the party at whose instance the removal was made. 130 U.S. at 233
STEVENS v. NICHOLS,130 U.S. 230(1889)
9 S.Ct. 518
STEVENSv. NICHOLS.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI.
No. 190.
Argued March 11, 1889.
Decided April 1, 1889.
A petition for removal which alleges the diverse citizenship of the parties in the present tense is defective, and if it does not appear in the record that such diversity also existed at the commencement of the action, the cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to send it back to the state court, with costs against the party at whose instance the removal was made.
THE case as stated by the court was as follows:

This action was commenced on the 25th day of July, 1881, in one of the courts of Missouri, by the defendant in error against the Texas and Atlantic Refrigerator Car Company, a corporation of that State, Robert S. Stevens and Henry D. Mirick. Its object was to reach, and have applied in satisfaction of a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the car company, the several amounts due from Stevens and Mirick on their subscriptions of stock in that company.

Stevens and Mirick filed a joint petition for the removal of the case into the Circuit Court of the United States, upon the ground of the diverse citizenship of the parties. The allegation in the petition was that the plaintiff "isa citizen of the State of Missouri," and that the defendants "arenot citizensPage 231of the State of Missouri, butarecitizens of the State of New York."

The state court made an order for the removal of the case to the Circuit Court of the United States. In the latter court, the necessary pleadings having been filed, the case was tried, resulting in a verdict and judgment against Stevens for the sum of $5027.33, and against Mirick for the sum of $627.41. The court having overruled a motion for new trial, and also a motion in arrest of judgment, Stevens has brought the case here for review.

No question was made in the court below or in this court as to the right of Stevens and Mirick to remove the case from the state court.
Mr. A.H. GarlandandMr. James Carrfor plaintiff in error.Mr. George P.B. Jacksonfor defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.
1. It was held inRobertsonv.Cease,97 U.S. 646,649, upon writ of error from a Circuit Court of the United States, that "in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or they should appear affirmatively and with equal distinctness in other parts of the record."Mansfield, Coldwater c. Railwayv.Swan,111 U.S. 379,382;Hancockv.Holbrook,112 U.S. 229,231;Thayerv.LifeAssociation,112 U.S. 717,719;Continental Ins. Co. v.Rhoads,119 U.S. 237,239.

2. The case was not removable from the state court, unless it appeared affirmatively in the petition for removal, or elsewhere in the record, that at the commencement of the action, as well as when the removal was asked, Stevens and Mirick were citizens of some other State than the one of which the plaintiff was, at those respective dates, a citizen.Gibsonv.Page 232Bruce,108 U.S. 561,562;Houston Texas Central Railwayv.Shirley,111 U.S. 358,360;Mansfield, Coldwater c. Railwayv.Swan,111 U.S. 379,381;Akersv.Akers,117 U.S. 197.

3. The petition for removal does not allege the citizenship of the parties except at the date when it was filed, and it is not shown elsewhere in the record that Stevens and Mirick were, at the commencement of the action, citizens of a State other than the one of which the plaintiff was, at that date, a citizen. The court, therefore, cannot consider the merits of the case.Metcalfv.Watertown,128 U.S. 586;Morrisv.Gilmer,129 U.S. 315,325.

The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to send it back to the state court, the plaintiff in error to pay the costs in this court and in the court below.Mansfield c. Railwayv.Swan,111 U.S. 379.Reversed.