Menard v. Goggan
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Newcomb v. Burbank (2d Cir. 1910)
- Ravenel v. Dekle (S.C. 1975)
- Tedars v. Savannah River Veneer Co. (S.C. 1943)
- International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co. (8th Cir. 1941)
- United States v. 5870 Bags & 100 Kegs (some slack) (District Court, S.D. New York 1937)
- McEldowney v. Card (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee 1911)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (Supreme Court of the United States 1989)
- Rosenberg v. Shuler (United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern 1923)
- Atchison, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. Gilliland (9th Cir. 1912)
- Taylor v. Weir (3d Cir. 1909)
- Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Reddick (7th Cir. 1908)
- Cochran v. Pittsburg, S. & N. R. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York 1907)
- Koike v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1907)
- Sanbo v. Union Pac. Coal Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado 1906)
- Littell v. Erie R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1900)
- Craswell v. Belanger (9th Cir. 1893)
- Denny v. Pironi (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
- Metcalf v. Watertown (Supreme Court of the United States 1888)
- Norton v. Larney (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
- Brigel v. Tug River Coal & Salt Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky 1896)
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Svendsen (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina 1896)
- Marks v. Marks (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee 1896)
- Tug River, Coal & Salt Co. v. Brigel (6th Cir. 1895)
- Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
This record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit which depended alone on the citizenship of the parties. The petition states that Edmund Menard, the plaintiff, “resides in Randolph County, in'the state of Illinois,” and that the defendants, of whom Thomas Goggan, the defendant in error, was one, “reside in the city of Galveston,” in the state of Texas. There is nothing else from which the citizenship of either party can be inferred, and this is not enough. We have so held at the present term in Continental Insurance Company v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, where the authorities are cited; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, and Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223. This judgment must, therefore, be reversed on the authority of those cases, and as the fault rests with the plaintiff in error, whose duty it was when bringing the suit to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will 'be at his costs in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229; Halsted v. Buster, supra. If the necessary citizenship *254 actually existed at the time the suit was begun, it will be for the court below to determine, when the case gets back, whether the record shall be amended so as to show that fact, and thus make out the jurisdiction.
The judgment of the. Circuit ' Cou/rt is reversed at the cosis of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.