Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.

155 U.S. 393

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1894-12-17
Topic
general

The Chief Justice : The title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as “of Chelsea in said district,” and the decedent as “ late of Chelsea,” and the defendant as “ a corporation organized. under the laws of the State of Michigan.” The writ and the original declaration do not appear in the record. The amended declaration commences thus: “ Plaintiff says that she is the widow of the late Granville P. Horne of Chelsea, Suffolk County, Comtaonwealth of Massachusetts, and that she was duly appointed by the probate court of Suffolk County administratrix of his estate.” As the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of ..the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, and as counsel, upon having their attention called to the matter, have furnished nothing of record which would Supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Rob *394 ertson v. Cease, 97 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
24 opinions
HORNE v. GEORGE H. HAMMOND CO.,155 U.S. 393(1894)
15 S.Ct. 167
HORNEv. GEORGE H. HAMMOND COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 86.
Argued November 20, 21, 1894.
Decided December 17, 1894.
When the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of a suit, where jurisdiction depends upon citizenship, and counsel, upon their attention being called to the matter, furnish nothing of record to supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Eugene P. Carver, (with whom wasMr. Robert M. Morseon the brief,) for plaintiff in error.Mr. George Putnamfor defendant in error.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:
The title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as "of Chelsea in said district," and the decedent as "late of Chelsea," and the defendant as "a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan." The writ and the original declaration do not appear in the record. The amended declaration commences thus: "Plaintiff says that she is the widow of the late Granville P. Horne of Chelsea, Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that she was duly appointed by the probate court of Suffolk County administratrix of his estate."

As the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, and as counsel, upon having their attention called to the matter, have furnished nothing of record which would supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.RobertsonPage 394v.Cease,97 U.S. 646,649;Andersonv.Watt,138 U.S. 694,702;Timmonsv.Elyton Land Co.,139 U.S. 378;Dennyv.Pironi,141 U.S. 121.Reversed and ordered accordingly.