JAMES BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
RICHARD R. KEENE
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.
The Supreme Court reversed a federal district court judgment in a diversity case because the petition failed to affirmatively establish jurisdiction by clearly alleging that the parties were citizens of different states. Chief Justice Marshall held that federal court jurisdiction requires positive and express averments of citizenship, not merely inferences that could be drawn from the allegations, and that a defendant's later answer asserting contrary facts could not cure the initial defect in the pleading.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a-decree of the court of the United States for the district of Louisiana. The first error assigned in the proceedings is, that the petition, which in the practice of Louisiana, is substituted for a declaration, does not show, with sufficient certainty, that the parties were within the jurisdiction of the court. If this objection be well founded, it is undoubtedly fatal.
. The petition avers, that the plaintiff, Richard R’aynal Keene, is a citizen of the state of Maryland; and that James Brown, the defendant, is a citizen or resident of the state of Louisiana, holding his fixed and permanent domicil in the parish of St Charles. The petition, then, does not aver positively, that the defendant is a citizen of the state of Louisiana, but in the alternative, that he is a-citizen or a resident. Consistently' with this averment, he may be either.'
The additional words of description, .“holding his fixed and. permanent domicil in the parish of St Charles,” do not aid this defective description. A citizen of the United States may become a citizen of that state in which he has a fixed and permanent domicil; but the pétition does not aver that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. The question is, whether the jurisdiction of the court is sufficiently shown by these averments.
The constitution extend^ the judicial power to “ controversies between citizens of different states;” and the judicial act gives jurisdiction, “in suits between a-citizen of the state where the.suit is brought, and a citizen of another state.”
The decisions of this court require, that the averment of jurisdiction shall be positive, that the declaration shall state expressly the fact on which jurisdiction depends. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from its averments.
In Bingham v. Cabot et al., 3 Dall. 382, 1 Cond. Rep. 170, the court held clearly, that it was necessary to set forth the citizenship (or alienage, when a foreigner was concerned) of the respective parties, in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court, and that the. record was, in that respect, defective.
In Abercrombie v. Dupuis and another, 1 Cranch 343, the plaintiffs below aver, “that they do severally reside without the limits of the district of Georgia, to wit, in'the state of Kentucky.” The defendant is called “ Charles Abercrombie, of the district of Georgia, aforesaid.” The judgment in favour of .the plaintiff below was reversed on the authority of the case of Bingham v. Cabot.
In Wood v. Wagnon, 2 Cranch 9, the judgment in favour of theplaintiffbelowwasreversed,because his petition did not show the jurisdiction of the court. It stated the plaintiff to be a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, and James Wood, the defendant, to be “ of Georgia, aforesaid.”
Capron v. Vanorden, 2 Cranch 126, was reversed, because the declaration did not state the citizenship or alienage of the plaintiff in the circuit court.
The same principle has been constantly recognized in this court.
The answer of James Brown asserts, that bota plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the state of Louisiana.
Without indicating any opinion on the question, whether any admission in the plea can cure an insufficient allegation of jurisdiction in the declaration, we are all of opinion that this answer does not cure the defect of the petition. If the averment of the answer may be looked into, the whole averment must be taken together. It is, that both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of Louisiana.
The decree of the court for the district of Louisiana is to be • reversed, that court not having jurisdiction; and the appeal to be dismissed.
The cross appeal, Keene v. Brown, is to be dismissed, the court having no jurisdiction.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the district court of the United States, for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion.of this court, that the said district court could not entertain jurisdiction of this cause, and that, consequently, this court has not jurisdiction in this cause, but for the purpose of reversing the judgment of the said district court entertaining said jurisdiction : whereupon, it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said district court be, and the same is hereby reversed, and that this writ of error be, and the same is hereby dismissed, for the want of jurisdiction. All of which is hereby ordered to be certified to the said district court, under the seal of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Mansfield v. Swan & Another, 111 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1884)…d been rendered in the Circuit Court, for want of the allegation of his own citizenship, which he ought to have 'made to establish ,the jurisdiction which he had invoked. This case was cited with approval by Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112. In Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, the court itself raised and insisted on the point of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court; and in that case, it was expressly ruled, that because it did not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, this court,…
-
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989)…s. In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore “stateless” for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District C…
-
Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1900)…en rendered in the Circuit Court, for Avant of the allegation of his own citizenship, which he ought to have made to establish the jurisdiction Avhich he invoked. This case Avas cited with approval by Chief [*454] Justice Marshall in Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112.” These rules have been recognized and applied in numerous cases.1 We are of opinion that the plaintiff as a limited partnership association was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. It was not alleged to be, nor could it ha…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bingham, 3 Dall. 382 (U.S. 1798)
- Lindo v. Gardner, 1 Cranch 343 (U.S. 1803)
- Abercrombie v. Dupuis and Another, 1 Cranch 343 (U.S. 1803)