Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Bingham v. Cabot

Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 382 (1798)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1798-02-14
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • rejecting defendants’ argument that “they did not need to ‘split out where they were incorporated or where they operated because they were the same’”
  • "str[iking] off the docket" many cases that alleged residence rather than citizenship
  • “striking] off the docket” many cases that alleged residence rather than citizenship
  • “A citizen of one state may reside for a term of years in another state, of which he is not a citizen; for, citizenship is clearly not co-extensive with inhabitancy.”

Citator

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

Cited by
53 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Pleading To bring a case within the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court on the ground of diversity of citizenship, the record must set forth the citizenship (or alienage, where a foreigner is concerned) of the respective parties; the mere statement of a party's place of residence or abode in the pleadings does not sufficiently allege citizenship. 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 382, 383 (1798)
  2. Civil Procedure — Federal Jurisdiction — Limited Jurisdiction Where a court is one of limited jurisdiction, the facts that bring the suit within its jurisdiction must appear affirmatively on the face of the record; a declaration omitting any allegation of the parties' citizenship is defective and fails to sustain the court's jurisdiction. 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 382, 383 (1798)
BINGHAM v. CABOT,3 U.S. 382(1798)
BINGHAM, Plaintiff in Error,versusCABOT,et al.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1798.
THIS action came again before the court,fn*on a writ of error; and an objection was taken to the record, that it was not stated, and did not appear in any part of the process and pleadings, that the Plaintiffs below, and the Defendant, were citizens of different States, so as to give jurisdiction to the Federal Court. The caption of the suit was — "At the "Circuit Court begun and held atBoston, within and for the "Massachusettsdistrict, on Thursday, the first day ofJune, "A.D. 1797, by the honorable OLIVER ELSWORTH, Esq. "Chief Justice, and JOHN LOWELL, Esq. District Judge — "John Cabot, et al. versus WilliamBingham:" And the declaration (which was for money had and received, to the Plaintiff's use) set forth, "thatJohn Cabot, ofBeverly, in the district "ofMassachusetts, merchant, and surviving copartner of "Andrew Cabot, late of the same place, merchant, deceased, "Moses Brown, Israel Tborndike, andJosephLee, all of the "same place, merchants,Jonathan Jackson, Esq. ofNewbury"Port, Samuel Cabot, ofBoston, merchant,George Cabot, of "Brookyln, Esq.Josbua Ward, ofSalem, merchant, andStephen"Cleveland, of the same place, merchant, all in our said "district ofMassachusetts, andFrancis Cabot, ofBoston,Page 383"aforesaid, now resident at Philadelphia aforesaid, merchant, "in plea of the case, for that saidWilliam, at saidBoston, on "the day of the purchase of this writ, being indebted to the "Plaintiffs, c. promised to pay, c." The Defendant pleadednonassumpsit, and an issue being thereupon joined and tried, there was a verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff, for 27,224 dollars and 93 cents, and costs.
Lee, Attorney General, contended for the Plaintiff in error, "that there was not a sufficient allegation on the record, of the citizenship of the parties, to sustain the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which is a limited jurisdiction. Though the Constitution declares, that "the citizens of each state shall be "entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the "several states,"Art. 4.s. 2. it contemplates, in the judicial article, the distinction between citizens of different states. A citizen of one state may reside for a term of years in another state, of which he is not a citizen; for, citizenship is clearly not co-extensive with inhabitancy. In the present case, neither the Plaintiffs, generally, nor any individual of them, not the Defendants, will be found expressly designated as aliens, or as citizens of any other place, or state, than that in which the suit was brought. Besides, there is not an entirety of parties, even as to the Plaintiffs, and they are not all stated as belonging to the same state. Wherever there is a limited jurisdiction, the facts that bring the suit within the jurisdiction must appear on the record. 9Mod. 95.Dexter, (ofMassachusetts) urged, on the other hand, that sufficient appeared to shew that, by legal intendment, the cause was within the jurisdiction of the court; that though it is difficult to establish a general rule, as to what makes citizenship, yet that the citizenship of a particular state, may be changed, by a citizen of theUnited States, without going through the forms and solemnities required in the case of an alien; that, on the principle of the constitution, a citizen of theUnited States, is to be considered more particularly as a citizen of that State, in which he has his house and family, is a permanent inhabitant, and is, in short, domiciliated; that stating in the declaration the party to be of a particular place designates his home, and, of course, his citizenship; and that the description ofFrancis Cabot(ofBoston, aforesaid, now resident inPhiladelphia, c.) proves what was intended, by stating the places of abode of the several parties. 2Danv.Cont. p. 20. 5Com. Dig. 289. 2Stra. 786. 290. 1L. Raym. 405. 2L. Raym. 1403.
THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that it was necessary to set forth the citizenship (or alienage, where a foreigner was concerned) of the respective parties, in order to bring thePage 384case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court; and that the record, in the present case, was in that respect defective.

This cause and many others, in the same predicament, were, accordingly, struck off the docket.
  1. Page 382 Seeant. p. 19. ↩