Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Neel v. Pennsylvania Co.

Neel v. Pa. Co., 157 U.S. 153 (1895)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1895-03-11
Topic
general

The Chief Justice stated the case, and said: On the authority of Grace v. American Central Insurance Co., 109 U. S. 278, 288, 284; Continental Insuramce Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; and Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Neel v. Pennsylvania Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
19 opinions
NEEL v. PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY,157 U.S. 153(1895)
15 S.Ct. 589
NEELv. PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF OHIO.
No. 188.
Submitted January 28, 1895.
Decided March 11, 1895.
When a defendant in a state court removes the cause to a Circuit Court of the United States on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the Circuit Court gives judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff below brings the case here, and it appears, on examining the record, that the pleadings do not disclose of what State the plaintiff was a citizen, this court will of its own motion reverse the judgment, remand the cause to the Circuit Court with costs against the defendant in error, and further adjudge that defendant must also pay costs in this court.
THIS action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, and removed into the Circuit Court by the defendant. The petition for removal stated: "First. The plaintiff was at the time of the commencement of this action and still is a resident of the State of Ohio, in the county of Richland. Second. The Pennsylvania Company, the defendantPage 154herein, is a corporation duly incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and was at the commencement of this action and still is a citizen of that State, and was not then, nor has it ever been, a citizen of the State of Ohio. Third. The matters in controversy in this suit are wholly between citizens of different States, and the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, and is to recover the sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars."

The record failed to show of what State plaintiff was a citizen.
Mr. Darius Dirlamfor plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE stated the case, and said:
On the authority ofGracev.American Central Insurance Co.,109 U.S. 278,283,284;Continental Insurance Co. v.Rhoads,119 U.S. 237; andMansfield, Coldwater Lake Michigan Railwayv.Swan,111 U.S. 379,388, the judgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed, with instructions to remand the case to the state court with costs against defendant in error, which must also pay the costs in this court.Hanrickv.Hanrick,153 U.S. 192,198.Judgment reversed accordingly.