THOMAS JACKSON ET AL., APPELLANTS
v.
WILLIAM E. ASHTON
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 the circuit court's judgment in a dispute between Thomas Jackson and William E. Ashton, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the pleadings failed to adequately establish the citizenship of the parties, which is required for federal jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall reaffirmed that the title of a bill does not cure defects in pleadings and that courts had consistently required express statements of citizenship in the record to establish jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The title or caption of the bill, is no part of the bill, and does not remove the objection to the defects in the pleadings. The bill and proceedings should state the citizenship of the parties, to give the court jurisdiction of the case.
The only difficulty which could arise to the dismissal of the bill, presents itself upon the statement, “ that the defendant is of Philadelphia.” This, it might be answered, shews that he is a citizen of Pennsylvania.
If this were a new question, the court might decide otherwise ; but the decision of the court, in cases which have heretofore been before it, has been express upon the point; and the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and avus argued by counsel; on consideration Avhereof, it is the opinion of this court, that the said circuit 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 decree of the said circuit court, entertaining said jurisdiction : whereupon, it is ordéred, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said circuit court be,, and the same is hereby reversed, and that this appeal be, and the same is hereby dismissed. All of which is hereby ordered to be certified to the said circuit court, under the seal of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Mansfield v. Swan & Another, 111 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1884)…t, 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, on [*383] appeal, had no jurisdict…
-
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1986)…ing upon that issue of fact, and the record contains no evidence to support the allegation of the bill. There was thus no showing that the District Court had jurisdiction and the bill should have been dismissed upon that ground”); Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 (1834); Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382, 383-384 (1798). Because his status as a parent was obviously different from his official status as a member of the Board, in order to participate as a parent in the District Court litigation it was incumb…
-
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1996)…(1978); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 398 (1975); California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 112-113, n. 3 (1972); American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6, 17-18, and n. 17 (1951); Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U. S. 237, 244 (1934); Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 (1834). We have, however, construed the Amendment, despite its text, to apply only to unconsenting States. See, e. g., Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447 (1883). In so doing, we of course left it for Congress to determine whether federal…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence