Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

CAPRON v. VAN NOORDEN, 6 U.S. 126 (1804)

CAPRON v. VAN NOORDEN., 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 126 (1804)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1804-01-01
Topic: general

CAPRON v. VAN NOORDEN, 6 U.S. 126 (1804) CAPRON v. VAN NOORDEN. FEBRUARY TERM, 1804. ERROR to the Circuit Court of North-Carolina.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CAPRON v. VAN NOORDEN, 6 U.S. 126 (1804). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CAPRON v. VAN NOORDEN,6 U.S. 126(1804)

CAPRONv. VAN NOORDEN.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1804.

ERROR to the Circuit Court ofNorth-Carolina. The proceedings statedVan Noordento belate of Pitt county, but did not allegeCapron, the plaintiff, to be an alien, nor a citizen of any state, nor the place of his residence.

Upon the general issue, in an action of trespass on the case, a verdict was found for the defendant,Van Noorden, upon which judgment was rendered.

The writ of Error was sued out byCapron, the plaintiff below, who assigned for error, among other things, first "That the circuit court aforesaid is a court "of limited jurisdiction, and that by the record aforesaid "it doth not appear, as it ought to have done, that "either the saidGeorge Capron, or the saidHadrianus"Van Noordenwas analienat the time of the commencement "of said suit, or at any other time, or that one of "the said parties was at that or any other time, a citizen "of the state ofNorth-Carolinawhere the suit was "brought, and the other a citizen of another state; or "that they the saidGeorgeandHadrianuswere for "any cause whatever, persons within the jurisdiction of "the said court, and capable of suing and being sued "there."Page 127

And secondly, "That by the record aforesaid it manifestly "appeareth that the said Circuit Court had not "any jurisdiction of the cause aforesaid, nor ought to "have held plea thereof, or given judgment therein, but "ought to have dismissed the same, whereas the said "Court hath proceeded to final judgment therein."

Harper, for the plaintiff in error, stated the only question to be whether the plaintiff had a right to assign for error, the want of jurisdiction in that Court to which he had chosen to resort.

It is true, as a general rule, that a man cannot reverse a judgment for errorin process or delay, unless he can shew that the error was to his disadvantage; but it is also a rule, that he may reverse a judgment for an error ofthe Court, even though it be for his advantage. As if a verdict be found for the debt, damages, and costs; and the judgment be only for the debt and damages, the defendant may assign for error that the judgment was not also for costs, although the error is for his advantage.

Here it was the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of parties could not give it.

It is therefore anerror of the Court, and the plaintiff has a right to take advantage of it. 2Bac. Ab. Tit. Error. (K. 4.) — 8Co. 59.(a) Beecher's case. — 1Roll. Ab. 759. —Moor692. — 1Lev. 289.Bernard v. Bernard.

The defendant in error did not appear, but the citation having been duly served, the judgment was reversed.