Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance

Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins., 148 U.S. 389 (1893)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1893-03-27
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reversing lower court’s judgment for want of jurisdiction because, while plaintiff averred he was “a resident” of New York, “his citizenship [wa]s nowhere disclosed”
  • reversing lower court’s judgment for want of jurisdiction because, while plaintiff averred that he was “a resident” of New York, “his citizenship [wa]s nowhere disclosed”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
52 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Federal Jurisdiction — Diversity of Citizenship Where federal jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of the parties, that citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, must be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings or appear with equal distinctness elsewhere in the record; it is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments. 148 U.S. at 389
  2. Civil Procedure — Pleading An averment that a plaintiff is and has been a resident of a particular city, county, and state is insufficient to establish the citizenship of the parties for purposes of federal jurisdiction where the record nowhere discloses the plaintiff's citizenship, because residence does not itself establish citizenship. 148 U.S. at 389
WOLFE v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO.,148 U.S. 389(1893)
13 S.Ct. 602
WOLFEv. HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK.
No. 162.
Submitted March 23, 1893.
Decided March 27, 1893.
A complaint which avers that the plaintiff was, at the several times named therein, "and ever since has been and still is a resident of the city, county and State of New York," is not sufficient to give the Circuit Court of that circuit jurisdiction on the ground of citizenship of the parties, when the record nowhere discloses the plaintiff's citizenship.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Robert S. GreenandMr. Henry Thompsonfor the plaintiff in error.Mr. Herman Kobbefor defendant in error.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:
The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiff was at the several times mentioned therein, "and ever since has been and still is, a resident of the city, county and State of New York," but his citizenship is nowhere disclosed by the record.

It is essential in cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties that such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments.Brownv.Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115;Continental Ins. Co. v.Rhoads,119 U.S. 237;Menardv.Goggan,121 U.S. 253.Judgment reversed at the cost of plaintiff in error and thecause remanded for further proceedings.Page 390