Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Stuart v. Easton

Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46 (1895)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1895-01-21
Topic
general

The Chief Justice : Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as “ a citizen of London, England,” and the defendants as “corporations of the State of Pennsylvania.” As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly depended *47 on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v.

Citator

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

Cited by
20 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Federal Jurisdiction — Diversity of Citizenship In order for a circuit court to take jurisdiction of a suit on the ground of the plaintiff's alienage, the fact that the plaintiff is an alien must be made affirmatively to appear; an averment that the plaintiff is "a citizen of London, England," with the defendant described as a citizen, is insufficient to establish that jurisdiction. 156 U.S. at 46-47
  2. Civil Procedure — Pleading Where the record fails to make affirmatively to appear the fact on which the circuit court's jurisdiction depended, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiff in error, and the cause may be remanded to the circuit court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. 156 U.S. at 47
STUART v. EASTON,156 U.S. 46(1895)
15 S.Ct. 268
STUARTv. EASTON.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 151.
Argued January 15, 1895.
Decided January 21, 1895.
An averment that the plaintiff is "a citizen of London, England," is not sufficient to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction on the ground of his alienage, the defendant being a citizen; and on the question being raised in this court, the case may be remanded with leave to apply to the Circuit Court for amendment and for further proceedings.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. Berkeley TaylorandMr. A.T. Freedley, (with whom wasMr. W. Brooke Rawleon the brief,) for plaintiff in error.Mr. H.J. Steelefor defendants in error.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as "a citizen of London, England," and the defendants as "corporations of the State of Pennsylvania." As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly dependedPage 47on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings.Binghamv.Cabot, 3 Dall. 382;Mossmanv.Higginson, 4 Dall. 12;Capronv.Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125;Jacksonv.Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136;Conollyv.Taylor, 2 Pet. 556;Brownv.Keene, 8 Pet. 115;Robertsonv.Cease,97 U.S. 646;Börsv.Preston,111 U.S. 252,263;Dennyv.Pironi,141 U.S. 121;Hornev.George H. HammondCo.,155 U.S. 393.Judgment reversed.