Mason v. Rollins
80 U.S. 602 (1871)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Mason v. Rollins, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 602 602 (1871)

Mason v. Rollins

80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 602

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEALS FROM CIRCUIT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

Three appeals in equity against collectors and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dismissed, the pleadings not showing the citizenship required by the Judiciary Act and the bills having been all filed subsequently to the 13th July, 1866, when the act of 1833, which gave jurisdiction to the courts of the United States of suits under the Internal Revenue Acts against collectors and others without regard to citizenship, was repealed.

The first bill described the complainant as a citizen of the State of Illinois, and one defendant (Rollins) as of the District of Columbia, and a citizen of the state of _____, and other defendants (Allen and Ferguson) as citizens of the State of Illinois.

The second bill described the plaintiff as a citizen of the State of Illinois, and three defendants (Mann, Allen and Ferguson) as citizens of the State of Illinois, and one defendant (Delano) as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, without averring that he was a citizen of any state.

The third bill described the plaintiff as a citizen of the State of Illinois, and did not aver that any of the defendants were citizens of any other state.

All the bills were filed subsequently to the 13th July, 1866, when the act of 1833, which gave jurisdiction to the courts of the United States of suits under the Internal Revenue Acts against collectors and others, without regard to citizenship, was repealed. *

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is manifest that the averments of citizenship in neither

Page 80 U. S. 603

of the bills are sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and all were filed subsequent to the 13th of July, 1866.

When these suits were brought, therefore, there was no act in force giving jurisdiction in cases such as those made by the records to the courts of the United States. The circuit court was obliged, therefore, to dismiss the bill in each case for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment of that court in the several cases must be

Affirmed.

* Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 544; 13 Stat. at Large 241; 14 id. 172.

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.