STEIGLEDER
v.
MCQUESTEN

U.S. | 1905-04-24
No. 227
198 U.S. 141 Supreme Court of the United States (1905) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 49 L. Ed. 986 · 25 S. Ct. 616 · 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1145 · SCDB 1904-092
Cited by 49 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 federal Circuit Court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction in a suit brought by a Massachusetts citizen against Washington residents, despite the plaintiff's residence in Washington at the time the suit was filed. The Supreme Court held that residence and citizenship are distinct concepts for jurisdictional purposes, and the evidence supported that the plaintiff remained a Massachusetts citizen with only temporary residence in Washington, thereby establishing the diverse citizenship required for federal jurisdiction.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan,

Mr. Justice Harlan,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different States was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depended on citizenship. While under the judiciary act of 1789 an issue as to the fact of citizenship could only be made by plea in abatement, when the pleadings properly averred citizenship, the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, 472, c. 137, made it the duty of the Circuit Court, at any time in the progress of a cause, to dismiss the suit, if it was. satisfied either that it did not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within" the jurisdiction of the court, or that the parties were improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under the act of Congress. Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How. 505; Williams v. Nottawa, 104 U. S. 209, 211; Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U. S. 138, 143; Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596, 602; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 326. This provision of the act of 1875 was not superseded by the judiciary act of 1887, 1888, and is still in force. Lehigh Min. & Manuf. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U. S. 327, 339; Lake County Com’rs v. Dudley, 173 U. S. 243, 251; Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 194, 195; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 66. The motion to dismiss the cause, based upon the proofs taken by the master, was, therefore, an appropriate mode in which to raise the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

It is to be observed that the grounds assignéd for the motion to dismiss the cause, taken alone, did not distinctly raise any question concerning the' absence of diverse citizenship; for the motion only stated that the plaintiff and the defendants were, respectively, residents of the' State of Washington. But it has long been settled that residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States; and that" a mere averment of residence 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 Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 194, 195. The evidence warrants thé conclusion "reached by that court; namely, that the plaintiff was, for many years prior to the commencement of the action, a citizen of Massachusetts, and that her residence in the State of Washington, at and before the suit was brought, is not shown to be otherwise than temporary, without any fixed purpose to abandon citizenship in Massachusetts. So far as appears from the. record, she was, when the suit was brought, a citizen of Massachusetts.

The Circuit Court did not" err iti taking jurisdiction-of the cause, and

It will be so certified.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • Saint Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938)
    …but upon a motion to dismiss or a plea in abatement. Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 183. Since then it has been their duty not only to act upon a motion to dismiss, (Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U. S. 141) or, if the state practice permits, upon a denial of jurisdiction [*288] in the answer, (Gilbert v. David, 235 U. S. 561; North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Soley, 257 U. S. 216) but to act sua sponte (McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., supra, 184)…
  • McNUTT v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936)
    …nsider the application. of the statute under, varying conditions. See Barry v. Edmunds, supra; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315; Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. 241; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 701; Wetmore v. Rymer, supra; Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U. S. 141, 143; Gilbert v. David, supra; North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Soley, supra; Broad-Grace Arcade Corp. v. Bright, 284 U. S. 588. In Anderson v. Watt, supra, a suit in equity, the Court said that under the Act of 1875 “the objection to the jurisdictio…
  • Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1915)
    …averred the citizenship of the parties. Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U. S. 138, 143; Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596, 604. The objection may be made now by answer before answering to the merits, or it may be made by motion. Steigleder v. McQuestion, 198 U. S. 141. The statute does not prescribe any particular mode by which the question of jurisdiction is to be brought to the attention of the court, and the method of raising the question may be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Wetmore v. Rymer…

Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (15 total)

View all 15 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw