Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Jeffcott v. Donovan

135 F.2d 213

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1943-04-19
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that complaint did 9 not allege diversity where plaintiff alleged residency, but not citizenship, of the parties
  • holding that complaint did not allege diversity where plaintiff alleged residency, 10 but not citizenship, of the parties
  • explaining that diversity “is not dependent upon the residence of any of the parties, but upon their citizenship[]”

Citator

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

Cited by
19 opinions
JEFFCOTT v. DONOVAN,135 F.2d 213(9th Cir. 1943)
JEFFCOTT et al. v. DONOVAN.
No. 10251.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 19, 1943.
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1943.
Page 214
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona; Albert M. Sames, Judge.

Action by Edward J. Donovan against David C. Jeffcott and Elsie Jeffcott, his wife, for services rendered. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.
Darnell Robertson, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellants.

Lesley B. Allen, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
The defendants, in an action filed and prosecuted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona against them for services performed, appeal from the judgment found against them in the action.

It is alleged in the amended complaint, upon which together with defendants' answer the action went to trial and judgment, that the plaintiff is a resident of the State of New Jersey and that the defendants are residents of the "State and District of Arizona, and that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $3,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs." These allegations are admitted by the answer. No other allegation regarding the subject of jurisdiction is contained in the pleadings.

Diversity of citizenship as a basis for the jurisdiction of a cause in the District Court of the United States is not dependent upon the residence of any of the parties, but upon their citizenship. 28 U.S.C.A. § 41, Subdivision (1), Judicial Code, § 24, amended. Bouvier (Baldwin's Students Ed. 1934) says, "Citizen and resident (q.v.) are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important." It might well be that a resident of any one state in point of fact may be a citizen of that or any other state. Cf. La Tourette v. McMaster,248 U.S. 465, 470, 39 S.Ct. 160, 63 L.Ed. 362; The Slaughter-House Cases,83 U.S. 36, 73, 16 Wall. 36, 73, 21 L.Ed. 394; Travis v. Yale Towne Mfg. Co.,252 U.S. 60, 78, 40 S.Ct. 228, 64 L.Ed. 460. See an able discussion in Baker v. Keck, D.C.,13 F. Supp. 486; also, 14 C.J.S., Citizens, § 1, p. 1130.

At the time set for the argument in this cause the defect in the pleadings thus apparent was discussed in open court, but no amendment thereto was proffered. The cause was argued upon the merits subject to the court's determination as to the trial court's jurisdiction and thereafter was submitted. No jurisdiction of the District Court was alleged or shown.

Reversed and remanded.Page 215