WOLFE
v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

U.S. | 1893-03-27
No. 162
148 U.S. 389 Supreme Court of the United States (1893) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 37 L. Ed. 493 · 13 S. Ct. 602 · 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2238 · SCDB 1892-155
Cited by 36 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice :

The Chief Justice :

The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiff was at the several times mentioned therein, “ and ever since has been and still is, a resident of the city, county and State of New York,” but his citizenship is nowhere dis-t closed by the record.

It is essential in cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties that such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly arid positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253.

Judgment reversed at the cost of plaintiff in error and the canse remoulded for further proceedings.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Realty Holding Co. v. Donaldson, 268 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1925)
    …541. The bill alleges that appellant is a Delaware corporation and appellee a “ resident ” of Michigan. This is not a sufficient allegation of appellee’s Michigan citizenship. Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 648; Wolfe v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 148 U. S. 389; Oxley Stave Company v. [*400] Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 655. It was, however, conceded by appellee in the court below, as well as here, that she was in fact a citizen of Michigan; and the court below assumed the point. Since the defect may be c…
  • MAS v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)
    …624, 34 S.Ct. 442, 58 L.Ed. 758 (1914); Stine v. Moore, 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F. 2d 446, 448. For diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient. See Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 148 U.S. 389, 13 S.Ct. 602, 37 L.Ed. 493 (1893); Stine v. Moore, 5 Cir., 1954, 213 F. 2d 446, 448. A person’s domicile is the place of “his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom…
  • Steigleder v. McQUESTEN, 198 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1905)
    …ses 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 Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 194, 195. The evidence warrants thé conclusion "r…

Previewing 3 of 9 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