Summary
In Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46, it was held that by the description of plaintiff as "a citizen of London, England," the fact that he was a subject of the British Crown was not made affirmatively to appear as required; but, in the case at bar, complainants described themselves as "all of Cognac in France, and citizens of the Republic of France," and this was sufficient.
Summary of this case from Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co.Opinion
No. 151.
Argued January 15, 1895. Decided January 21, 1895.
An averment that the plaintiff is "a citizen of London, England," is not sufficient to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction on the ground of his alienage, the defendant being a citizen; and on the question being raised in this court, the case may be remanded with leave to apply to the Circuit Court for amendment and for further proceedings.
Mr. C. Berkeley Taylor and Mr. A.T. Freedley, (with whom was Mr. W. Brooke Rawle on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Mr. H.J. Steele for defendants in error.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as "a citizen of London, England," and the defendants as "corporations of the State of Pennsylvania." As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly depended on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646; Börs v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252, 263; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U.S. 393.
Judgment reversed.