Kelly v. Harding
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff, in his declaration, alleges, that he is a citizen of the state of Georgia, and that the defendants are citizens of the state of Massachusetts. This allegation excludes the jurisdiction of this court. The fact that a plea to the jurisdiction was not put in by the defendant, instead of a plea, to the merits, does not help the case. One of the parties must be a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and there must be a positive averment of that fact on the record. But, instead of that, the-averment is exactly the reverse, and in advance shows that the court is without authority to try the cause. It is hardly necessary to say, that this is not like a case where the court has jurisdiction over the parties, after the service of process on the defendant, or a case where, though no service has been made on the defendant, he comes in and submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, thus waiving a provision of the statute enacted for his protection. This court has no jurisdiction whatever over controversies between parties, all of whom, plaintiffs as well as defendants, are citizens-of states other than that in which the suit is brought. This suit is therefore coram non judice, and a judgment upon its merits would be a nullity. Let an order be entered dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.