Bingham v. Cabot
Opinion
3 U.S. 382 (____) 3 Dall. 382
BINGHAM, Plaintiff in Error,
versus
CABOT, et al.
Supreme Court of United States.
*383 Lee, Attorney General, contended for the Plaintiff in error.
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 *384 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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(rejecting defendants’ argument that “they did not need to ‘split out where they were incorporated or where they operated because they were the same’”)
-
("str[iking] off the docket" many cases that alleged residence rather than citizenship)
-
(“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.”)
Cited by 46 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court15
- U.S. Courts of Appeals9
- Federal District Courts13
- Historical Federal Courts2
- State Highest Courts5
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.