TIMMONS
v.
ELYTON LAND COMPANY

U.S. | 1891-03-30
No. 1325
139 U.S. 378 Supreme Court of the United States (1891) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 35 L. Ed. 195 · 11 S. Ct. 585 · 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2390 · SCDB 1890-181
Cited by 10 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

Margaret McElrath and other non-resident plaintiffs sued the Elyton Land Company, an Alabama corporation, in federal circuit court, but the record failed to establish the citizenship of all parties necessary to show federal diversity jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case because the record did not demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction over the suit, which required proper diversity of citizenship between the parties.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Puller

Mr. Chief Justice Puller delivered the opinion of the court

This was an action brought by Margaret C. McElrath, Mary E. McElrath and Linda E. Timmons against the Elyton Land Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama.

The complaint averred “ that Mary E. McElrath is a resident of the State of North Carolina, and that Linda E. Timmons and Margaret Celia McElrath are residents of the State of South Carolina,” and that the defendant “ is a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Alabama and doing business within said State.”

By the summons, the marshal was commanded “ to summon the Elyton Land'Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Alabama, and who is a citizen of the State of Alabama, to appear ... to answer the complaint of .Margaret Celia McElrath and Linda E. Timmons, who are residents of the county of Spartanburg, State of South Carolina, and Marv E. McElrath, who is a citizen of the State of North Carolina.” The complaint was subsequently amended b}r adding the names of twelve other plaintiffs without any averment as to their citizenship.

In the bill of exceptions, which appears in the record, it is stated that “ the plaintiffs were non-residents of the State of Alabama.”

As the record does not-show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiffs in error, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694.

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1892)
    …uralized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Grace v. American Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121. By the act of May 4, 1858, c. 27, § 1, it was enacted that, in a State containing more than one district, actions not local [*448] should “ be brought in the district in which the defendanl resides,” or “ if there b…
  • Steigleder v. McQUESTEN, 198 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1905)
    …ence in a particular State is not an averment of citizenship in that State for the purposes of jurisdiction. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121, 123; Wolfe v. Hartford L. & A. Ins. Co., 148 U. S. 389. But the Circuit Court treated the question of jurisdiction as raised and passed upon it. Wé must therefore look at the evidence bearing on that point. Defiance…
  • Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1894)
    …the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Robertson [*394] v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 702; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378 ; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121. Reversed a/nd ordered accordingly.…

Previewing 3 of 4 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