Opinion
No. 188.
Submitted January 28, 1895. Decided March 11, 1895.
When a defendant in a state court removes the cause to a Circuit Court of the United States on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the Circuit Court gives judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff below brings the case here, and it appears, on examining the record, that the pleadings do not disclose of what State the plaintiff was a citizen, this court will of its own motion reverse the judgment, remand the cause to the Circuit Court with costs against the defendant in error, and further adjudge that defendant must also pay costs in this court.
Mr. Darius Dirlam for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
THIS action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, and removed into the Circuit Court by the defendant. The petition for removal stated: "First. The plaintiff was at the time of the commencement of this action and still is a resident of the State of Ohio, in the county of Richland. Second. The Pennsylvania Company, the defendant herein, is a corporation duly incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and was at the commencement of this action and still is a citizen of that State, and was not then, nor has it ever been, a citizen of the State of Ohio. Third. The matters in controversy in this suit are wholly between citizens of different States, and the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, and is to recover the sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars."
The record failed to show of what State plaintiff was a citizen.
On the authority of Grace v. American Central Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278, 283, 284; Continental Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237; and Mansfield, Coldwater Lake Michigan Railway v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 388, the judgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed, with instructions to remand the case to the state court with costs against defendant in error, which must also pay the costs in this court. Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U.S. 192, 198.
Judgment reversed accordingly.