EVERHART
v.
HUNTSVILLE COLLEGE; CLAY V. HUNTSVILLE COLLEGE
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.
A suit brought in federal circuit court was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to properly allege the citizenship of the parties, as residence alone is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the dismissal, holding that an averment of residence is not equivalent to an averment of citizenship for purposes of federal jurisdictional requirements, and placed the costs of reversal on the plaintiff whose duty it was to establish jurisdiction in the pleadings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered -the opinion of the court.
These are appeals from a decree dismissing the original bill and a cross-bill in a suit begun in the Circuit Court of .the United States for the Northern Hi strict of, Alabama, - by George M. Everhart against the Huntsville Female Academy, George W.
F. Price, Martha T. Rison, Myra J. Erwin, Robert .M. Erwin, William II. Erwin, Joseph B. Erwin, and Marcus A. Erwin, and in which Hugh L. Olay, as administrator de bonis non of Abraham R. Erwin, - deceased, was after-wards added as a defendant, but on looking into the record we find no sufficient evidence of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which depends alone on the citizenship of the parties. It is . stated in the original bill that Everhart is a resident of Wisconsin, and the same fact is also shown by the testimony,-..but this, as it has often been held, is not enough. An averment of residence is not the equivalent of an averment of citizenship for the purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States. According to the pleadings the Huntsville Female Academy is .an Alabama corporation, and the other defendants are residents of either Alabama or Tennessee. The decree dismissing both the original and cross-bills is reversed, because the record fails to .show the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, but as the fault rests alone‘on Everhart, the complainant in the original bill, whose duty it was to put on record the facts necessary to show the jurisdiction, the reversal will be at his costs in this court. This whole subject has already been considered twice during the present term ; once in Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, and again in Paper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S.
469. The reasons for our judgment sufficiently appear in the opinions delivered in those cases. If on the return of the case to the Circuit Court it is made to appear that the citizenship necessary for the jurisdiction existed* at the time the suit was brought, it will be for that court to determine whether an amendment of the pleadings ought to be allowed, so as to cure the present defects.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, • at the costs .of the appellcmt Everhart, mid the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent .with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1889)…s, 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 company organized under a law of the State, of Ne…
-
Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1891)
-
Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1888)…the record that they were, at that time, -citizens of the same State with the defendant. Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, 248; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 239; Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469, 471; Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253; and the cases before cited. Nor can the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court be maintained upon the theory that this suit is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The fact that it was brough…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1886)
- Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1886)