HORNE
v.
GEORGE H. HAMMOND COMPANY

U.S. | 1894-12-17
No. 86
155 U.S. 393 Supreme Court of the United States (1894) Caution
Also reported at: 39 L. Ed. 197 · 15 S. Ct. 167 · 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2283 · SCDB 1894-040
Cited by 35 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

A widow as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate sued a Michigan corporation in federal circuit court, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the record failed to establish the court's jurisdiction, which required proof of the parties' citizenship. The Court held that without clear evidence in the record showing the requisite diversity of citizenship, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.

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

Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice :

The Chief Justice :

The title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as “of Chelsea in said district,” and the decedent as “ late of Chelsea,” and the defendant as “ a corporation organized. under the laws of the State of Michigan.” The writ and the original declaration do not appear in the record. The amended declaration commences thus: “ Plaintiff says that she is the widow of the late Granville P. Horne of Chelsea, Suffolk County, Comtaonwealth of Massachusetts, and that she was duly appointed by the probate court of Suffolk County administratrix of his estate.”

As the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of ..the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, and as counsel, upon having their attention called to the matter, have furnished nothing of record which would Supply the defect, 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 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1925)
    …e 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 an amendment here. Udall v. Steamship Ohio, 17 How. 17, 18-19; Kennedy v. Georgia State…
  • Sun Printing & Publ'g Ass'n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1904)
    …elaware,” as such an averment would not necessarily have imported that Edwards was a citizen of Delaware, a negative answer would have been impelled by prior decisions. Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Duthie, 189 U. S. 76; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646. The whole record, however, may be looked to, for the purpose of curing a' defective averment of citizenship, where jurisdiction in a Federal court is asserted to depend upon diversit…
  • Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1895)
    …orden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 263; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393. Judgment reversed.…

Previewing 3 of 10 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