MENARD
v.
GOGGAN
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.
The Supreme Court reversed a Circuit Court judgment because the record failed to establish the complete citizenship of the parties necessary for federal diversity jurisdiction, requiring only that parties resided in different states without affirmatively showing citizenship. The Court held that it is the plaintiff's duty to make jurisdiction appear in the record, and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the record could be amended to establish the requisite diversity jurisdiction.
© 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 depended alone on the citizenship of the parties. The petition states that Edmund Menard, the plaintiff, “resides in Randolph County, in'the state of Illinois,” and that the defendants, of whom Thomas Goggan, the defendant in error, was one, “reside in the city of Galveston,” in the state of Texas. There is nothing else from which the citizenship of either party can be inferred, and this is not enough. We have so held at the present term in Continental Insurance Company v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, where the authorities are cited; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, and Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S.
223. This judgment must, therefore, be reversed on the authority of those cases, and as the fault rests with the plaintiff in error, whose duty it was when bringing the suit to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will 'be at his costs in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229; Halsted v. Buster, supra. If the necessary citizenship actually existed at the time the suit was begun, it will be for the court below to determine, when the case gets back, whether the record shall be amended so as to show that fact, and thus make out the jurisdiction.
The judgment of the. Circuit ' Cou/rt is reversed at the cosis of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989)…6 (No. 444) (CC Mass. 1812). Although there is language in several 19th-century cases that 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 r…
-
Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1925)…can Central Ry. Co. v. Duthie, 189 U. S. 76, 77-78. And if this court should now reverse the decree and remand the cause, that amendment could still be allowed by the trial court. Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 240; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253; Robertson v. Cease, supra, pp. 650-651; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393; Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 46. True, the practice of this court has been to remit the question of amendment to the lower court unless the parties consented to…
-
Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1889)…leadings, on they should appear affirmatively, 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 E…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Everhart v. Huntsville Coll., 120 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1887)
- Halsted v. Buster, 119 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1886)
- Hancock v. Holbrook & Others, 112 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1884)