TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Company

Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 553 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 23, 1871
Judges
Nelson
Citations
77 U.S. 55319 L. Ed. 99810 Wall. 5531870 U.S. LEXIS 1151
Cited by 12 Original from court
Headnotes
1. In a suit against a corporation by one State', an averment that the defendant is a body politic by the law of another State, named and “doing business” in it, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to this court. 2. This court has no original jurisdiction of a suit brought by a State against its own citizens.
Summary
On motion to dismiss an original writ: The first clause of the second section of the third article of the Constitution ordains that the judicial power shall extend to certain cases named, and among them “ to controversies between a State and the citizens of another State.” The second clause of this same section provides: “ That in all cases affecting ambassadors, &e., and those in which a State shall be a party, th.e Supreme Court shall Lavé' original jurisdiction,” and that “ in all the other cases before mentioned it shall have appellate jurisdiction.” The 13th section of the Judiciary Act provides : “ That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, and except also between a State and citizens of another State, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original, but not exclusive jurisdiction.’’ In this state of the law, constitutional and statutory, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought an original suit against the Quicksilver Mining Company. The declaration was thus: “The commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by her attorney-general, complains of the Quicksilver Mining Company, a body politic in the law of, and doing business in, the State of California, of a plea that tho .said company render unto the said commonwealth the sum of $100,000, &c.”

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

Opinion — Nelson

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

By the second section of the third article of the Constitu-' tion it is ordained that the judicial power shall extend “to all controversies between a State and the citizens of another State.” The second clause of this section provides “that in all cases affecting ambassadors, &c., and those in which a State shall be a. party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. . . In all other cases before mentioned it shall have appellate jurisdiction.”

*556 This second clause distributes the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court in the previous one into original and appellate jurisdiction; but does not profess to confer any. • • The thirteenth section of the Judiciary Act, * which provides for the jurisdiction of this court, accords with this construction. .....

Á State, therefore, may bring a suit, by virtue of its original jurisdiction, against a citizen of another State, but not against one of her own. And the.question in this.case is whether it is sufficiently disclosed in the declaration that this suit is brought against a citizen of California. And this turns upon another question, and that is, whether the averment there imports that the defendant is a corporation created by the laws of that State; for, unless it is, it does not partake of the character of a citizen within the meaning of the cases on this subject.

† The court is of opinion that this averment is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation. It may mean that the defendant is a corporation doing business in that State by its agent; but not that it had been incorporated by the laws of the State. It would have been very easy t.o have made the fact clear by averment, aud, being a jurisdictional fact, it should not have been left in doubt. Indeed, it was admitted in the argument that the defendant was a Pennsylvania corporation, and the jurisdiction sought to be sustained by a suit against this agency. We have already shown that this" is unavailable to support the jurisdiction.

Motion granted, and the Writ dismissed.

* Quoted supra.

† Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co., 16 Howard, 314 , and cases there cited.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1893: 21895: 11902: 21905: 11906: 11909: 11933: 11945: 11952: 11975: 118932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Oregon v. Hitchcock202 U.S. 60 (1906)
  2. Riley v. Carter1933 OK 448, 25 P.2d 666
  3. Knight v. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co.136 F. 404 (5th Cir. 1905)
  4. Fishblatt v. Atlantic City174 F. 196 (1909)
  5. Sumter v. Sheffield116 F. Supp. 373 (S.D. Tex. 1952)
  6. Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad324 U.S. 439 (1945)

Most recent

  1. William E. Greene, Food Distributors v. General Foods Corporation, a Delaware Corporation517 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1975)
  2. Sumter v. Sheffield116 F. Supp. 373 (S.D. Tex. 1952)
  3. Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad324 U.S. 439 (1945)
  4. Riley v. Carter1933 OK 448, 25 P.2d 666
  5. Fishblatt v. Atlantic City174 F. 196 (1909)
  6. Oregon v. Hitchcock202 U.S. 60 (1906)

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