AMORY
v.
AMORY; SAME V. SAME
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.
A defendant seeking removal of a state court case to federal court under the 1867 removal statute must allege the personal citizenship of all parties, not merely their official or representative capacity; the Supreme Court affirmed that a New York state court properly retained jurisdiction over suits by executors against a New Jersey citizen where the removal petition failed to establish the executors' personal citizenship as citizens of a different state.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases are substantially disposed of by the decision in Insurance Company v. Pechner, supra, p. 183. They each present the question of the sufficiency of a petition for removal under the act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 558. The suits were in New York by the defendants in error as exeeutors, against the plaintiff in error, a citizen of New Jersey. The petitions for removal set'forth sufficiently the citizenship of the plaintiff in error, but as to' the defendants-, in error the allegations are “ that said plaintiffs, as such executors, are' citizens of the State of New York/’ Clearly this is not sufficient. Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends upon the citizenship of the parties,' it .has reference to. the 'parties as.persons;. A petition for removal must, therefore, state the personal citizenship of the parties, and not their official citizenship, if there can be such a thing. From the .language here employed, the court may properly, infer that, as .persons,, the plaintiffs in error were not citizens of "New York. For all that appears, they may. have, been -citizens 'of New. Jersey, as was. the defendant. Holding, ás we do, that, a State court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction .upon a petition for removal until.'at .least a petition is filed, which, upon its face, shows the .right of the petitioner to .the transfer, it Avas not error for the court to retain these causes. -We need not, therefore, 'consider whether the act' of 1867 limits the right of removal to the citizenship of the parties' at the time of the commencement of the suit, or whether the. State court had the right to call upon the. defendants in error-to show cause against the application. • . Judgments affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., Inc., 284 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1931)…tors or intestates might not have been entitled to sue or been liable to suit in those courts for want of diversity of citizenship. Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66; Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186; Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336; American Bible Society v. Price, 110 U. S. 61; Continental Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237. It was, however, held by the court below that this principle is inapplicable to a case, like the present, where the ad…
-
Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. COX, 145 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1892)
-
Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1886)…the intestate, Maris Rhoads, was' at the time of his death a citizen of Pennsylvania, but there is nothing to show the 'citizenship of the plaintiff, and the jurisdiction depends on her citizenship, and not on that of her intestate. Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186. It is true that the record does show that letters of administration were granted to her in Pennsylvania, but that does not make her a citizen of that State." It may be that by the law of Pennsylvania the personal representative of a deceased citize…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence