Supreme Court of the United States, 1883

Gibson v. Bruce

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 7, 1883 · Waite

108 U.S. 561; 2 S. Ct. 873; 27 L. Ed. 825; 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1068 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. T. McPougall, Mr. G-. Hoadly, Mr: E. M. Johnson, and Mr. E. Oolston for appellant,, Mr. T. P. Lincoln for appellee,

Cases that cite this one

44 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Knudson v. Systems Painters, Inc. (8th Cir. 2011)
MAS Capital, Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. (7th Cir. 2008)
Third National Bank v. Shearson Equipment Management Corp. (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1984)
Nowell v. Nowell (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1967)
Washington-East Washington Joint Authority v. Roberts & Schaefer Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1960)
Kieffer v. TRAVELERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (District Court, D. Maryland 1958)
Stamm v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1955)
Texas Wool & Mohair Marketing Ass'n v. Standard Acc. Ins. (5th Cir. 1949)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey (Ala. 1929)
Luisa Chavez-Lavagnino v. Motivation Education Training (8th Cir. 2013)
John Knudson v. Systems Painters (8th Cir. 2011)
Growth Realty Companies v. Burnac Mortgage Investors, Ltd. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1979)
Unanue v. Caribbean Canneries, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1971)
Pellas v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)
Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. Butte-Balaklava Copper Co. (District Court, D. Montana 1912)
O'Conner v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa 1909)
Huntington v. Pinney (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1903)
German Savings & Loan Soc. v. Dormitzer (9th Cir. 1902)
Burnham v. First Nat. Bank (8th Cir. 1892)
Richmond & D. R. v. Findley (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1887)
Spekulation Orphan Relief Trust v. Newrez, LLC (9th Cir. 2025)
Dedrick v. Admiral Insurance Company (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2025)
MAS Capital, Inc v. Biodelivery Sciences (7th Cir. 2008)
Kyle v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas 1909)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the court below decided that under the act of March 3d, 1875, c. 137, there could not be a. .removal to the Circuit Court of the United States of a suit in a State court between parties who were citizens of different States when the suit was begun, if when the petition for removal was filed the parties were all citizens of the same State. To reverse an order remanding a suit on that ground, this appeal was taken.

Under the judiciary act of 1789 (sec. 12), it was held, in Insurance Company v. Pechner, 95 U. S. 183, that there could not be a removal unless the necessary citizenship existed when the suit was begun. That act provided only for a removal on the application of the defendant when the plaintiff was a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought, and the defendant was required to file his petition for removal at the time of entering his appearance in the State court. Under such circumstances changes of citizenship, after the suit was begun and before the time for applying for a removal, would not often occur.

The act of 1875 is radically different from any which preceded it. Under that act either party may petition for removal, and neither party need be a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought. The material language is as follows:

“ That any .suit of a civil nature at law or in equity, now pend *563 ing or hereafter brought in any State court, ... in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, . . . either party may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district.”

In order to obtain the remoyal, a petition ^therefor must be filed in the State court at or before the term at which the cause could be first tried, and before the trial. In the present case the petition was not filed until nearly two years after the commencement of the suit.

The constructiofi of the act is by no means free from doubt, but on full consideration we are of opinion that the requirement of the old law, that the necessary citizenship should exist when the suit was brought, was not abolished. We cannot believe it was intended to allow a party to deprive a State court of the jurisdiction it has once rightfully acquired over him by changing his citizenship after a suit is begun, and that would be the effect of the law if the right of removal is made to depend only on the citizenship existing at the time a removal is applied for. But we are also of opinion that because of the extension of the. time for applying for a removal, and because neither party need be a citizen 'of the State in which the suit is brought and either party may apply, it was the intention to provide that the controversy should be between citizens of different States at the time .of the removal. In this way the jurisdiction of.the Circuit Court of the United States will only attach when there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States at the time the suit is transferred, and the right to the transfer will depend on the citizenship when the suit was begun and when the petition for removal is filed.

We, therefore, hold that a suit cannot be removed from a State court under the act of 1875, unless the requisite citizenship of the parties exists both when the suit was begun and when the petition for removal is filed.

The order remanding the cause is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.