Stevens v. Nichols
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
1. It was held in Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649 , upon writ of error from a Circuit Court of the United States, that “ in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or they should appear affirmatively .and with equal distinctness in other parts of the record.”
Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 ;
Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229, 231 ;
Thayer v. Life Association, 112 U. S. 717, 719 ;
Continental Ins. Co.
v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 239 .
2. The case was not removable from the state court, unless it appeared affirmatively in the petition for removal, or elsewhere in the record, that at the commencement of the action, as well as when the removal was asked, Stevens and Mirick were citizens of some other State than the one of which the plaintiff was, at those respective dates, a citizen.
Gibson v. *232 Bruce, 108 U. S. 561, 562 ;
Houston & Texas Central Railway v. Shirley, 111 U. S. 358, 360 ;
Mansfield, Coldwater &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 381 ;
Akers v. Akers, 117 U. S. 197 .
3. The petition for removal does not allege the citizenship of the parties except at the. date when it was filed, and it is not shown elsewhere in the record that Stevens and Mirick were, at the commencement of the action, citizens of a State other than the one of which the plaintiff was, at that date, a citizen. The court, therefore, cannot consider the merits of the case.
Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586 ;
Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 325 .
The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to send it back to the state court, the plaintiff in error to pay the costs in this court and in the court below.
Mansfield &c. Railway v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 .
Reversed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[D]iversity of citizenship must exist both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.”)
-
(“The case was not removable from the state court, unless it appeared ... that at the commencement of the action, as well as when the removal was asked, [defendants] were ... [diverse].”)
-
(“It is well established that when diversity of citizenship is the basis for removal jurisdiction, it must exist both at the time the original action is filed in state court and at the time removal is sought.”)
Cited by 100 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court12
- U.S. Courts of Appeals13
- Federal District Courts48
- Historical Federal Courts11
- State Highest Courts10
- State Appellate Courts6
Relies on it most ⓘ
- F & L DRUG CORP. v. American Central Insurance Co.
- Washington-East Washington Joint Authority v. Roberts & Schaefer Co.
- Yarbrough v. Blake
- Michael Ashford v. Aeroframe Services, L.L.C., et
- Stamm v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company
- Winters Government Securities Corp. v. NAFI Employees Credit Union
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.