After a case has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the
pleadings having been technically defective, the Court will not, at
a subsequent term, allow them to be amended an the case to be
reinstated on the docket. It would be in effect a reversal of the
former decree after the case had been finally disposed of in this
Court.
There will be no difficulty in making the amendment in the
circuit court in such a case if that court shall see fit, in its
discretion, to allow it to be done, and the cause may then be
reheard there and a decree, newly rendered, may be brought up on
appeal to this Court, or a decree may be there rendered by consent
of parties in order to bring up the case without delay.
This case was before the Court at January term, 1834, on an
appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and was dismissed for want of
jurisdiction, the complainants, Thomas Jackson and others, in the
circuit court having omitted to state in the body of the bill,
filed on the equity side of the court, that the defendant was a
citizen of the State of Pennsylvania.
33 U. S. 8 Pet.
148.
MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.
A motion has been made to allow an amendment of the record of
this case, by inserting an allegation of the citizenship of the
parties, and to reinstate this cause on the docket under the
following circumstances:
The cause came before this Court at the January term, 1834, and,
as will be found in the eighth volume of Mr. Peters' Reports
33 U. S. 148-149,
was then reversed for want of jurisdiction of the circuit court by
reason of the omission to allege that the parties were citizens of
different states, the appeal to this Court was dismissed, and the
decree of this Court was ordered to be certified to the circuit
court.
We are of opinion that under these circumstances, the record
cannot be amended or the cause reinstated in this Court. It would
in effect be a reversal of the former decree of this Court. We have
no power over the decrees rendered by this Court after the term
has
Page 35 U. S. 481
passed and the cause has been dismissed or otherwise finally
disposed of here.
But in our opinion there is no difficulty in making the proposed
amendment in the circuit court if that court shall see fit in its
discretion to allow it to be done. The cause may then be reheard
there, and upon the decree newly rendered an appeal can then be
taken to this Court, or a decree may be there rendered by consent
of the parties in order to enter the cause without any delay to
this Court.
This Court, in rendering its former decree, had no authority
(not having any jurisdiction but to reverse for the want of
jurisdiction of the circuit court) to send the cause back for
further proceedings with liberty to amend the bill. But the mandate
was not understood by us to apply, except to the record in its then
state, and we entertain no doubt that notwithstanding anything in
the former decree of reversal, it is entirely competent for the
circuit court, in its discretion, to allow the amendment now
proposed to be made and to reinstate the cause in that court. But
we have no authority in the matter. The motion is therefore
Overruled.