Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 U.S. 136

Daviel Jackson v. John Twentyman

Supreme Court of the United States

January Term, 1829

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1829-01

THIS cause was brought before the Court by a writ of error to the circuit court of the southern circuit of New York. The description of the parties on the record was “John Twentyman, a subject of the king of Great Britain vs. Daniel ahd Joseph Jackson.” No citizenship of the defendants being argued.

1 counsel of record

Relies on Browne v. Strode · Bingham v. Cabot

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Custom”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 6–0 · Decided 1829-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2010 · most notably Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. (1970)

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 19 states

7018291830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

THIS cause was brought before the Court by a writ of error to the circuit court of the southern circuit of New York.

¶2

The description of the parties on the record was 'John Twentyman, a subject of the king of Great Britain vs. Daniel and Joseph Jackson.' No citizenship of the defendants being argued.

¶3

The question was whether the circuit court under the 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, which gives jurisdiction, among other cases, 'where an alien is a party,' had jurisdiction of the cause without an assumpsit on the record of the citizenship of the defendants.

¶4

Mr Taylor, for the plaintiffs in error, argued that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed. He cited Bingham vs. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382. Hodgson vs. Bowerbant, 5 Cranch, 303. Sullivan vs. The Fulton Steam Boat Company, 6 Wheaton, 450.

¶5

The Court were of opinion that the 11th section of the act must be construed in connexion with and in conformity to the constitution of the United States. That by the latter, the judicial power was not extended to private suits, in which an alien is a party, unless a citizen be the adverse party. It was indispensable therefore to aver the citizenship of the defendants, in order to show on the record the jurisdiction of the court.

¶6

The omission so to do was fatal, and according to the known course of the decisions of the Court, the judgment of the circuit court must be reyersed for want of jurisdiction.

/27/us/136 · .json · Public domain