TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bank of Cumberland v. Willis

Bank of Cumberland v. Willis, 2 F. Cas. 648 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 1839)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Circuit Court · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
May 15, 1839
Judges
Story
Citations
2 F. Cas. 6483 Sumn. 472
Headnotes
Case No. 885. Federal Courts—Jurisdiction*—Diverse Citizenship-Corporations. 1. To entitle a corporation to sue in the circuit courts of the United States, all the members of that corporation must be citizens of some state of the United States, other than that state, of which the defendant is a citizen. And the averments must so be made in the declaration, in order to entitle the court to take jurisdiction of the case. [Cited in Case v. Douglas. Case No. 2,491. Distinguished in Marshall v. Baltimore & O. It. Co., 16 How. (57 U. S.) 349.] [See, contra,—that the right of a corporation to litigate in the courts of the United States depends on the citizenship of the corporation, and not on that of its members,—Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. (43 U. S.) 497: Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, (66 U. S.l 286; Gree-lev v. Smith, Case No. 5,747: Blackburn v. Selma, M. & C. R. Co., Id. 1,467; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co., Id. 12,237.] [2. Cited in .Burnham v. Rangeley, Case No. 2,177, to the point that no costs are allowed if an action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.]
Summary
At law. Assumpsit [by the president, directors and company of the Bank of Cumberland against Henry Willis] for non-payment of certain bills of exchange, drawn at Portland, by one George Willis; one payable to tlie order of William Willis, and another to the order of Mason Greenwood, on the defendant, and accepted by him. The declaration alleged that all the members of the corporation were citizens of Maine, and the defendant a citizen of Massachusetts. A plea in abatement was put in by the defendant, that one Charles Brooks, of Boston, and a citizen of Massachusetts, was the owner of ten shares of the capital stock, and a cor-porator of the said Cumberland Bank, at the time of the commencement of the said suit. Demurrer and joinder. [Judgment for defendant.] cited Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Craneh, [7 U. S.] 267, and Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 761, as showing, that the courts of the United States ought not to limit their jurisdiction by narrow constructions and limitations, beyond the adjudged cases. cited 1 Kent, Comm. (3d Ed.) Beet. 16, pp. 346, 347; and Smith v. Riñes, [Case No. 13,-100.]

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Story

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

STORY, Circuit Justice.

The plea in abatement in this case is certainly good. It has been repeatedly decided in the courts of the United States, that to entitle a corporation to sue in the circuit courts of the United States, all the members/ of that corporation must be citizens of some state of the United States, other than that state, <vf which the defendant is a citizen. And the averments must so be made in the declaration, in order to entitle the court to take jurisdiction of the case. The cases of Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch, [9 U. S.] 57; Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, Id. 61; Breithaupt v. Bank of Georgia, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 238; Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 382; Turner v. Enrille, 4 Dall. [4 U. S.] 7; Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. [4 U. S.] 8; and Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. [7 U. S.] 267,— are fully in point. Mr. Chancellor Kent, in his learned commentaries, in' the passage cited at the bar, (1 Kent, Comm., 3d Ed., Lect. 16, pp. 343--347.1 has stated the acknowledged result of the cases in his usual clear and satisfactory manner. It remains, therefore, for this court only’to pronounce its judgment, that as it is admitted by the demurrer, that one of the corporators is a citizen of Massachusetts, the same state, of which the defendant is averred to be a citizen, the plea is good in point of law, and the suit must abate for want of jurisdiction.

The district judge concurs in this opinion, and, therefore, there must be a judgment, that the suit be abated, but without costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1854–1855: 118542026peak 1854 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad57 U.S. (16 How.) 314 (1854)

Most recent

  1. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad57 U.S. (16 How.) 314 (1854)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list