TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Timmons v. Elyton Land Co.

Timmons v. Elyton Land Company

Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U.S. 378 (1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 30, 1891
Docket
No. 1325
Judges
Fuller
Citations
139 U.S. 37811 S. Ct. 58535 L. Ed. 1951891 U.S. LEXIS 2390
Syllabus
In this case the complaint described the defendant as a corporation chartered under the laws of Alabama and doing business in that State, one of the plaintiffs as a “ resident” in North Carolina, and two other plaintiffs as “residents” in South Carolina. An amendment added twelve plaintiffs with no averments as to citizenship. As the jurisdiction depended upon citizenship; Held, that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction.
Summary
Error to the circuit court of the united states for the NORTHERN DISTRICT of ALABAMA. Motion to dismiss or affirm. The case is stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — Puller

Mr. Chief Justice Puller delivered the opinion of the court This was an action brought by Margaret C. McElrath, Mary E. McElrath and Linda E. Timmons against the Elyton Land *379 Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama.

The complaint averred “ that Mary E. McElrath is a resident of the State of North Carolina, and that Linda E. Timmons and Margaret Celia McElrath are residents of the State of South Carolina,” and that the defendant “ is a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Alabama and doing business within said State.”

By the summons, the marshal was commanded “ to summon the Elyton Land'Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Alabama, and who is a citizen of the State of Alabama, to appear ... to answer the complaint of .Margaret Celia McElrath and Linda E. Timmons, who are residents of the county of Spartanburg, State of South Carolina, and Marv E. McElrath, who is a citizen of the State of North Carolina.” The complaint was subsequently amended b}r adding the names of twelve other plaintiffs without any averment as to their citizenship.

In the bill of exceptions, which appears in the record, it is stated that “ the plaintiffs were non-residents of the State of Alabama.”

As the record does not- show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiffs in error, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253 ;

Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646 ;

Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112 ;

Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694 .

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1891: 11892: 21893: 21894: 21905: 11910: 11923: 11938: 118912026peak 1892 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Zicos v. Dickmann98 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1938)
  2. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Frederickson177 F. 206 (9th Cir. 1910)
  3. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.145 U.S. 444 (1892)
  4. Steigleder v. McQuesten198 U.S. 141 (1905)
  5. Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.155 U.S. 393 (1894)
  6. Craswell v. Belanger56 F. 529 (9th Cir. 1893)

Most recent

  1. Zicos v. Dickmann98 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1938)
  2. Rosenberg v. Shuler289 F. 820 (E.D. Okla. 1923)
  3. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Frederickson177 F. 206 (9th Cir. 1910)
  4. Steigleder v. McQuesten198 U.S. 141 (1905)
  5. Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.155 U.S. 393 (1894)
  6. Danahy v. National Bank of Denison64 F. 148 (7th Cir. 1894)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646 (1878) 209
Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694 (1891) 187
Brown v. Keene, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 112 (1834) 125
Menard v. Goggan, 121 U.S. 253 (1887) 34

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