PENNSYLVANIA
v.
QUICKSILVER COMPANY
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.
Pennsylvania brought suit in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction against the Quicksilver Company, claiming it was a citizen of California, but the Court found the state's declaration insufficiently alleged that the defendant was actually incorporated in California rather than merely doing business there. The Court held that a state may only sue a citizen of another state in its original jurisdiction, and that Pennsylvania failed to establish this jurisdictional requirement because the defendant was admittedly a Pennsylvania corporation, making the Court dismiss the writ for lack of jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. By the second section of the third article of the Constitu-' tion it is ordained that the judicial power shall extend “to all controversies between a State and the citizens of another State.” The second clause of this section provides “that in all cases affecting ambassadors, &c., and those in which a State shall be a. party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. . . In all other cases before mentioned it shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This second clause distributes the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court in the previous one into original and appellate jurisdiction; but does not profess to confer any. • • The thirteenth section of the Judiciary Act,* which provides for the jurisdiction of this court, accords with this construction. ..... Á State, therefore, may bring a suit, by virtue of its original jurisdiction, against a citizen of another State, but not against one of her own. And the.question in this.case is whether it is sufficiently disclosed in the declaration that this suit is brought against a citizen of California. And this turns upon another question, and that is, whether the averment there imports that the defendant is a corporation created by the laws of that State; for, unless it is, it does not partake of the character of a citizen within the meaning of the cases on this subject.† The court is of opinion that this averment is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation. It may mean that the defendant is a corporation doing business in that State by its agent; but not that it had been incorporated by the laws of the State. It would have been very easy t.o have made the fact clear by averment, aud, being a jurisdictional fact, it should not have been left in doubt. Indeed, it was admitted in the argument that the defendant was a Pennsylvania corporation, and the jurisdiction sought to be sustained by a suit against this agency. We have already shown that this" is unavailable to support the jurisdiction. Motion granted, and the Writ dismissed. * Quoted supra. † Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co., 16 Howard, 314, and cases there cited.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Georgia v. Pa. R.R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1945)…nal jurisdiction of the Court in a suit against one of her citizens. If either of the defendants who assert this defense is a citizen of Georgia and is a necessary party, leave to file would have to be denied. Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 10 Wall. 553; California v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U. S. 229; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U. S. 199; Louisiana v. Cummins, 314 U. S. 577. We do not, however, have to decide at this stage of the proceedings whether the corporations in question a…
-
California v. S. Pac. Co., 157 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1895)…e where a State is a party, but not of controversies between a State and its own citizens, and original but not exclusive jurisdiction of controversies between a State and citizens of another State or aliens. In Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Company, 10 Wall. 553, it was ruled that a State might bring an original suit in this court against a citizen of another State, but not against one of its own, and it has never been held that the court could take original jurisdiction of controversies between a State-and…
-
State of La. v. Garfield, 211 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1908)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence