121 U.S. 253 - Menard v. Goggan — 121 U.S. 253

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1989 · most notably Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (1989), Norton v. Larney (1925)

17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1error to the circuit court of the united states for the EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

¶2It is again held that when the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court depends alone on citizenship, an averment that the plaintiff is a “ resident” in one state named, and that the,defendant is a “resident” in another state named confers no jurisdiction; and a judgment rendered below in such case in favor of the defendant and brought up in error by the plaintiff, is reversed with costs in this court against the plaintiff in error.

¶3The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

¶4Mr. John W. Butterfield for plaintiff in error.

¶5No appearance for defendant in error.

¶6Mr. Chief Justice "Waite

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8This record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit which depended alone on the citizenship of the parties. The petition states that Edmund Menard, the plaintiff, “resides in Randolph County, in'the state of Illinois,” and that the defendants, of whom Thomas Goggan, the defendant in error, was one, “reside in the city of Galveston,” in the state of Texas. There is nothing else from which the citizenship of either party can be inferred, and this is not enough. We have so held at the present term in Continental Insurance Company v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, where the authorities are cited; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, and Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223. This judgment must, therefore, be reversed on the authority of those cases, and as the fault rests with the plaintiff in error, whose duty it was when bringing the suit to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will 'be at his costs in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229; Halsted v. Buster, supra.If the necessary citizenship *254actually existed at the time the suit was begun, it will be for the court below to determine, when the case gets back, whether the record shall be amended so as to show that fact, and thus make out the jurisdiction.

¶9The judgment of the. Circuit ' Cou/rt is reversed at the cosis of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.