Stuart v. EastonAnnotate this Case
156 U.S. 46 (1895)
U.S. Supreme Court
Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46 (1895)
Stuart v. Easton
Argued January 15, 1895
Decided January 21, 1895
156 U.S. 46
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
An averment that the plaintiff is "a citizen of London, England," is not sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction on the ground of his alienage, the defendant being a citizen, and on the question being raised in this Court, the case may be remanded with leave to apply to the circuit court for amendment and for further proceedings.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.
Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as "a citizen of London, England," and the defendants as "corporations of the State of Pennsylvania." As the jurisdiction of the circuit court confessedly depended
on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the circuit court with leave to apply for amendment, and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Connolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease,97 U. S. 646; Boers v. Preston,111 U. S. 252, 111 U. S. 263; Denny v. Pironi,141 U. S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.,155 U. S. 393.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.