SULLIVAN ET AL.

v.

THE FULTON STEAM BOAT COMPANY

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1892)
  …nly when all the members of the corporation were, and were alleged to be, citizens of the State which created the corporation. Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch, 57; Sullivan v. Fulton Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450; Breithaupt v. Bank of Georgia, 1 Pet. 238; Commercial Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60. But in Louisville &c. Railroad v. Letson, in 1844, it was adjudged, upon great consideration, that it is sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction that the corporation…
• Grace and Another v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1883)
  …khardt, 100 U. S. 686. The'record in this case presents a question of jurisdiction which, although not raisfed by either party in the court below’ or in this court, we do not feel at liberty to pass without notice. Sullivan v. Fulton Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450; Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148. As the jurisdiction of the circuit court is limited, in the sense that it has no other jurisdiction than that conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the presumption is that a cause is without its…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Marshall v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 16 How. 314 (U.S. 1853)
  …Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Ib. 126; Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Ib. 267; The Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Ib. 61; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Ib. 303; The Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91; Sullivan v. The Fulton Steamboat Company, 6 Wheat. 450 — the doctrine is ruled and reiterated, that in order to maintain an action in the courts of the United States, under the clause in question,’ not only must the parties be citizens of different States, but that this character must be averred explici…

  ← 1 / 3 →