Summary
In Bingham v. Cabot. 3 Dall. 382. the ground of jurisdiction was more strongly laid; and yet a similar defect was successfully assigned for error.
Summary of this case from Turner v. the President, Directors, of Bank of North-AmOpinion
FEBRUARY TERM, 1798.
Lee, Attorney General, contended for the Plaintiff in error, "that there was not a sufficient allegation on the record, of the citizenship of the parties, to sustain the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which is a limited jurisdiction. Though the Constitution declares, that "the citizens of each state shall be "entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the "several states," Art. 4. s. 2. it contemplates, in the judicial article, the distinction between citizens of different states. A citizen of one state may reside for a term of years in another state, of which he is not a citizen; for, citizenship is clearly not co-extensive with inhabitancy. In the present case, neither the Plaintiffs, generally, nor any individual of them, not the Defendants, will be found expressly designated as aliens, or as citizens of any other place, or state, than that in which the suit was brought. Besides, there is not an entirety of parties, even as to the Plaintiffs, and they are not all stated as belonging to the same state. Wherever there is a limited jurisdiction, the facts that bring the suit within the jurisdiction must appear on the record. 9 Mod. 95.
Dexter, (of Massachusetts) urged, on the other hand, that sufficient appeared to shew that, by legal intendment, the cause was within the jurisdiction of the court; that though it is difficult to establish a general rule, as to what makes citizenship, yet that the citizenship of a particular state, may be changed, by a citizen of the United States, without going through the forms and solemnities required in the case of an alien; that, on the principle of the constitution, a citizen of the United States, is to be considered more particularly as a citizen of that State, in which he has his house and family, is a permanent inhabitant, and is, in short, domiciliated; that stating in the declaration the party to be of a particular place designates his home, and, of course, his citizenship; and that the description of Francis Cabot (of Boston, aforesaid, now resident in Philadelphia, c.) proves what was intended, by stating the places of abode of the several parties. 2 Danv. Cont. p. 20. 5 Com. Dig. 289. 2 Stra. 786. 290. 1 L. Raym. 405. 2 L. Raym. 1403.
THIS action came again before the court, on a writ of error; and an objection was taken to the record, that it was not stated, and did not appear in any part of the process and pleadings, that the Plaintiffs below, and the Defendant, were citizens of different States, so as to give jurisdiction to the Federal Court. The caption of the suit was — "At the "Circuit Court begun and held at Boston, within and for the " Massachusetts district, on Thursday, the first day of June, "A.D. 1797, by the honorable OLIVER ELSWORTH, Esq. "Chief Justice, and JOHN LOWELL, Esq. District Judge — " John Cabot, et al. versus William Bingham:" And the declaration (which was for money had and received, to the Plaintiff's use) set forth, "that John Cabot, of Beverly, in the district "of Massachusetts, merchant, and surviving copartner of " Andrew Cabot, late of the same place, merchant, deceased, " Moses Brown, Israel Tborndike, and Joseph Lee, all of the "same place, merchants, Jonathan Jackson, Esq. of Newbury " Port, Samuel Cabot, of Boston, merchant, George Cabot, of " Brookyln, Esq. Josbua Ward, of Salem, merchant, and Stephen " Cleveland, of the same place, merchant, all in our said "district of Massachusetts, and Francis Cabot, of Boston, "aforesaid, now resident at Philadelphia aforesaid, merchant, "in plea of the case, for that said William, at said Boston, on "the day of the purchase of this writ, being indebted to the "Plaintiffs, c. promised to pay, c." The Defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and an issue being thereupon joined and tried, there was a verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff, for 27,224 dollars and 93 cents, and costs.
See ant. p. 19.
THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that it was necessary to set forth the citizenship (or alienage, where a foreigner was concerned) of the respective parties, in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court; and that the record, in the present case, was in that respect defective.
This cause and many others, in the same predicament, were, accordingly, struck off the docket.