Halsted v. Buster

Supreme Court of the United States
Halsted v. Buster, 119 U.S. 341 (1886)
7 S. Ct. 276; 30 L. Ed. 462; 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1995

Halsted v. Buster

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice "Waite

' delivered the opinion of the court.

This record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit, which depends alone on the citizenship of the parties. In the declaration it is stated that' Halsted, the plaintiff, is a citizen of New York, but nothing is said of the citizenship of the defendants. Neither is there anything in the rest of the record to show what their citizenship actually was. For this reason the judgment is revised, but, , as the fault rests alone on the plaintiff, whose duty it wa. in bringing the suit, to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will be at. his cost in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229. If the citizenship of the defendants was, in fact, such at the commencement of. the suit as to give the Circuit Court ’ jurisdiction, it will be in the power of that court, when the case gets back, to allow the necessary amendment to be made -and .then proceed tb trial. This whole subject was recently. considered at the present, term in The Continental Life Insur *343 ance Co. v. Rhoads, ante, 237, and it is only necessary to refer now to the opinion in that case and the authorities there cited for the reasons of .this judgment.

' Reversed at the cost of the plgi/ntiff m error..

Reference

Cited By
25 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
When the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States in an action at law depends upon the citizenship of the parties to the suit, the declaration must show the necessary relative citizenship. When the judgment of the court below is reversed by reason of failure of the pleadings to show the citizenship necessary to give jurisdiction, it is within the discretion of that court, on the case coming back, to allow amendments to cure the defect.