HALSTED
v.
BUSTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Halsted brought a lawsuit in federal court, but the record failed to establish the citizenship of the defendants, which is necessary to show that the court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, placing the costs of reversal on Halsted as the plaintiff, since it was his duty to establish jurisdiction; the court noted that if the defendants were indeed citizens of a different state, the Circuit Court could permit amendment of the pleadings upon remand.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite
' delivered the opinion of the court.
This record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit, which depends alone on the citizenship of the parties. In the declaration it is stated that' Halsted, the plaintiff, is a citizen of New York, but nothing is said of the citizenship of the defendants. Neither is there anything in the rest of the record to show what their citizenship actually was. For this reason the judgment is revised, but, , as the fault rests alone on the plaintiff, whose duty it wa. in bringing the suit, to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will be at. his cost in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229. If the citizenship of the defendants was, in fact, such at the commencement of. the suit as to give the Circuit Court ’ jurisdiction, it will be in the power of that court, when the case gets back, to allow the necessary amendment to be made -and .then proceed tb trial. This whole subject was recently. considered at the present, term in The Continental Life Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, ante, 237, and it is only necessary to refer now to the opinion in that case and the authorities there cited for the reasons of .this judgment.
' Reversed at the cost of the plgi/ntiff m error..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989)…t can be read to suggest that the Court did not have the authority to allow such amendments, see Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121, 124 (1891); Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253, 254 (1887); Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469, 471 (1886); Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, 342 (1886); Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 240 (1886), we believe these cases are best understood as examples of the discretionary practice referred to in Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, supra. See Norton v. Larney, 266 U. S. 511, 515-5…
-
Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1889)…firmatively, and with equal distinct [*682] ness, in other parts of the record,” citing Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 22 Wall. 322; Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401; and Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112. See also Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341; Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223. On looking into the record we find no satisfactory showing as to the citizenship of the plaintiff. The allegation of the amended petition is, that the United States Express Company is a joint stock co…
-
Lion Bonding & Sur. Co. v. Karatz, 262 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1923)…Virginia R. R. Co., 158 U. S. 53. Although the dismissal below is for want of jurisdiction, costs in this Court may be allowed, because it has jurisdiction to review. Winchester v. Jackson, 3 Cr. 514; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46; Hoisted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341; Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96, 105.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hancock v. Holbrook & Others, 112 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1884)