Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Hodgson & Thompson v. Bowerbank

9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1809-01-01
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • implying that the 1789 Judiciary Act could not constitutionally be read to grant jurisdiction over suits between only two aliens
  • holding allegation of residence, as opposed to citizenship, insufficient to support alienage jurisdiction
  • judiciary act gives circuit court jurisdiction in all suits in which an alien is proceeding against “a citizen of some one of the United States”
  • cited as authority by Karazanos v. Madison Two Associates, 147 F.3d 624, 626 (7th Cir.1998)
  • "[T]he statute cannot extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the Constitution."
  • “the statute cannot extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the constitution.”
  • diversity jurisdiction does not extend to actions between aliens
  • finding no jurisdiction over action between two aliens

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hodgson & Thompson v. Bowerbank. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
71 opinions
HODGSON v. BOWERBANK,9 U.S. 303(1809)
HODGSON AND THOMPSONv. BOWERBANK AND OTHERS.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1809.
ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Maryland. The defendants below were described in the record as "late of thedistrict of Maryland, merchants," but were not stated to becitizen'sof the state of Maryland. The plaintiffs were described as "aliensand subjects of the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Martincontended, that the courts of the UnitedPage 304States had not jurisdiction, it not being stated that the defendants were citizens of any state.C. Lee, contra. The judiciary act gives jurisdiction to the circuit courts in all suits in whichan alien is a party. LawsU.S. vol. 1.p. 55. § 11.
MARSHALL, Ch. J.
Turn to the article of the constitution of the United States, for the statute cannot extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the constitution.

(The words of the constitution were found to be "betweena state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.")

The court said the objection was fatal.

The record was afterwards amended by consent.