TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gassies v. Ballon

Pierre Gassies, Plaintiff in Error v. Jean Gassies Ballon, Defendant in Error

Gassies v. Ballon, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 761 (1832)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 15, 1832
Judges
Marshall
Citations
31 U.S. 7618 L. Ed. 5736 Pet. 7611832 U.S. LEXIS 499
Headnotes
The petition filed in the district court of the United States of Louisiana, alleged, that the defendant had caused himself to be naturalized an American citizen, and that he was, at the time of the filing of the petition, residing in the parish of West Baton Rouge. Held, that this was equivalent to an averment that the defendant is a citizen of the state of Louisiana. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the union, is a citizen of that state. The authorities, on the question of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States on the allegation of citizenship, in proceedings in those couvts, have gone as far in limiting the jurisdiction of those courts as it would be reasonable and proper to go.
Summary
ERROR to the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. This case came before the district court of the eastern district of Louisiana, on a petition filed in November 1829, by-Jean Gassie's-Ballon, for the recovery of the proceeds of certain goods, left in the hands of his son Pierre Gassies for sale, and for a balance of an account arising out of the sale of the-said goods, and other transactions between them. The petitioner described himself in the petition as a resident of the eity of Barsac, and a French citizen of the kingdom of France, and now in the parish of Baton Rouge, intending to return to Franee as soon as the settlement of his affairs would permit. The defendant, Pierre Gassies his son, was described “ as now residing in the parish of West Baton Rouge, where the said Pierre Gassies caused himself to be naturalized an American citizen.” The defendant appeared to the suit, and after a plea of no cause of action,-which was overruled by the court, the cause was tried by a jury, and in February 1830, a verdict wras rendered for the petitioner for three thousand one hundred dollars, for which sum the district court entered judgment in his favour. The defendant prosecuted this writ of error.

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

Opinion — Marshall

Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivéred the opinion of the Court.

In. this case the court is of opinion that the jurisdiction can be sustained. The. defendant in error is alleged in the proceedings to be a citizen of the United States, naturalized in Louisiana, and .residing there. This is equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen of that state.' A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the union, is a citizen of that state.

'The authorities on this question have gone far enough; and this court is not disposed to narrow any moire the limitations which have been imposed by the decided cases. They have gone as far as it would be reasonable and proper to go. The judgment of the district court of Louisiana is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1835–1836: 11853–1854: 11857–1858: 11865–1866: 11867–1868: 11869–1870: 11871–1872: 11873–1874: 11883–1884: 11891–1892: 11895–1896: 11899–1900: 31903–1904: 11913–1914: 11927–1928: 11971–1972: 11975–1976: 118352026peak 1899 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. George S. Krasnov v. Brendan Dinan465 F.2d 1298 (3d Cir. 1972)
  2. Deere v. State of New York22 F.2d 851 (N.D.N.Y. 1927)
  3. United States v. Severino125 F. 949 (1903)
  4. Littell v. Erie R. Co.105 F. 539 (1900)
  5. Dred Scott v. Sandford60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
  6. Williamson v. Osenton232 U.S. 619 (1914)

Most recent

  1. State v. Nolfi358 A.2d 853 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
  2. George S. Krasnov v. Brendan Dinan465 F.2d 1298 (3d Cir. 1972)
  3. Deere v. State of New York22 F.2d 851 (N.D.N.Y. 1927)
  4. Williamson v. Osenton232 U.S. 619 (1914)
  5. United States v. Severino125 F. 949 (1903)
  6. Littell v. Erie R. Co.105 F. 539 (1900)

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