STEVENS
v.
NICHOLS

U.S. | 1889-04-01
No. 190
130 U.S. 230 Supreme Court of the United States (1889) Caution
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 914 · 9 S. Ct. 518 · 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1742 · SCDB 1888-165
Cited by 41 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this diversity jurisdiction case, the Supreme Court held that a case cannot be removed from state court to federal court unless the record affirmatively establishes that the defendants were citizens of a different state from the plaintiff both at the commencement of the action and at the time of removal. Because the removal petition failed to allege the defendants' citizenship at the time the action was commenced, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the state court, establishing that citizenship jurisdictional facts must be distinctly and positively averred in pleadings or appear affirmatively in the record.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.

1. It was held in Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649, upon writ of error from a Circuit Court of the United States, that “ in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or they should appear affirmatively .and with equal distinctness in other parts of the record.” Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229, 231; Thayer v. Life Association, 112 U. S. 717, 719; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 239.

2. The case was not removable from the state court, unless it appeared affirmatively in the petition for removal, or elsewhere in the record, that at the commencement of the action, as well as when the removal was asked, Stevens and Mirick were citizens of some other State than the one of which the plaintiff was, at those respective dates, a citizen. Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U. S. 561, 562; Houston & Texas Central Railway v. Shirley, 111 U. S. 358, 360; Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 381; Akers v. Akers, 117 U. S. 197.

3. The petition for removal does not allege the citizenship of the parties except at the. date when it was filed, and it is not shown elsewhere in the record that Stevens and Mirick were, at the commencement of the action, citizens of a State other than the one of which the plaintiff was, at that date, a citizen. The court, therefore, cannot consider the merits of the case. Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 325.

The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to send it back to the state court, the plaintiff in error to pay the costs in this court and in the court below. Mansfield &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379.

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

  • Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1900)
    …so., 112 U. S. 717, 720; Ayers v. Watson, 113 U. S. 594, 598; King Bridge Co. v. Otoe Co., 120 U. S. 225, 226; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 587; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 325; Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 681; Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. 230; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571, 590; Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. 81, 83; Martin v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 689; Mattingly v. N. W. Va. R. R. Co., 158 U. S. 53, 57; Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92, 98.…
  • Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1914)
  • Matter of Albert N. Moore, 209 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1908)

Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw