Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

130 U.S. 230

9 S. Ct. 518

32 L. Ed. 914

Docket No. 190.

Stevens v. Nichols

Supreme Court of the United States

Arguéd March 11, 1889.

Decided April 1, 1889.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1889-04-01

The case as stated by the court .was as follows : This action was commenced on the 25th day of July, 1881, in one of the courts of Missouri, by the defendant in error against the Texas and Atlantic Refrigerator Car Company, a corporation of that State, Robert S. Stevens and Henry ID. Mirick.

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that in all cases where a final judgment or decree shall be rendered in the Circuit Court of the United States in which there shall have been a question involving the jurisdiction of the court, the party against whom the judgment or decree is rendered shall be entitled to an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to review said judgment or decree without reference to the amount of the same ; but in cases where the deCTee or judgment does not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars the Supreme Court shall not review any question raised upon the record except such question of jurisdiction.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Mattingly v. Northwestern Virginia Railroad

Relies on Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Morris v. Gilmer · Robertson v. Cease

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 8–0 · Decided 1889-04-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones (1900), Margaret Williamson v. Katherine Osenton (1914)

30 federal appellate · 27 district · 17 state decisions

45018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

¶2A petition for removal which alleges the diverse citizenship of the parties in the present tense is defective, and if it does not appear in the record that such diversity also existed at the commencement of the action, the cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to send it back to the state court, with costs against the party at whose instance the removal was made.

¶3The case as stated by the court .was as follows :

¶4This action was commenced on the 25th day of July, 1881, in one of the courts of Missouri, by the defendant in error against the Texas and Atlantic Refrigerator Car Company, a corporation of that State, Robert S. Stevens and Henry ID. Mirick. Its object was to reach, and have applied in satisfaction of a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the car company, the several amounts due from Stevens and Mirick on their subscriptions of stock in that company.

¶5Stevens and Mirick filed a joint petition for the removal of the case into the Circuit Court of the United States, upon the ground of the diverse citizenship of ..the parties. The allegation in the petition was that the plaintiff “ is a citizen of the State of Missouri,” and that the defendants “ are not citizens *231of the State of Missouri, but a/re citizens of the State of' New York,”

¶6The state court made an order for the removal of the case to the Circuit Court of the United States. In the latter court, the necessary pleadings having been filed, the case was tried, resulting in a verdict and judgment against Stevens for the sum of $5027.33, and against Mirick for the sum of $627.41. The court having overruled a new trial · Case Law">motion for new trial, and also a motion in arrest of judgment, Stevens has brought the case here for review.

¶7No question was made in the court below or in this court as to the right of Stevens and Mirick to remove the case from the state court.

¶8Mr. A. He Garland and Mr. James Carr for plaintiff in error.

¶9Mr. George P. B. Jackson for defendant, in error.

¶10Mr. Justice Harlan

¶11delivered the opinion of the court.

¶121. It was held in Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649, upon writ of error from a Circuit Court of the United States, that “ in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or they should appear affirmatively .and with equal distinctness in other parts of the record.” Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229, 231; Thayer v. Life Association, 112 U. S. 717, 719; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 239.

¶132. The case was not removable from the state court, unless it appeared affirmatively in the petition for removal, or elsewhere in the record, that at the commencement of the action, as well as when the removal was asked, Stevens and Mirick were citizens of some other State than the one of which the plaintiff was, at those respective dates, a citizen. Gibson v. *232Bruce, 108 U. S. 561, 562; Houston & Texas Central Railway v. Shirley, 111 U. S. 358, 360; Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 381; Akers v. Akers, 117 U. S. 197.

¶143. The petition for removal does not allege the citizenship of the parties except at the. date when it was filed, and it is not shown elsewhere in the record that Stevens and Mirick were, at the commencement of the action, citizens of a State other than the one of which the plaintiff was, at that date, a citizen. The court, therefore, cannot consider the merits of the case. Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 325.

¶15The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to send it back to the state court, the plaintiff in error to pay the costs in this court and in the court below. Mansfield &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379.

¶16Reversed.

/130/us/230 · .json · Public domain