Supreme Court of the United States, 1891

Timmons v. Elyton Land Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 30, 1891 · Fuller

139 U.S. 378; 11 S. Ct. 585; 35 L. Ed. 195; 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2390 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Alexander T. Loudon for the motion., Mr. T. H. Watts and Mr. H. A. Herbert opposing.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Zicos v. Dickmann (8th Cir. 1938)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Frederickson (9th Cir. 1910)
Rosenberg v. Shuler (United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern 1923)
Steigleder v. McQuesten (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
Horne v. George H. Hammond Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)
Danahy v. National Bank of Denison (7th Cir. 1894)
Craswell v. Belanger (9th Cir. 1893)
American Sugar-Refining Co. v. Johnson (5th Cir. 1893)
Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1892)
Laskey v. Newtown Min. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1892)

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 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.

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