Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance
Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance
Opinion
The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiff was at the several times mentioned therein, “ and ever since has been and still is, a resident of the city, county and State of New York,” but his citizenship is nowhere dis-t closed by the record.
It is essential in cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties that such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly arid positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253.
Judgment reversed at the cost of plaintiff in error and the canse remoulded for further proceedings.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Wolfe v. Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
- Cited By
- 52 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- A complaint which avers that the plaintiff was, at the several, times named therein, “ and ever since has been and still is a resident of the city, county and State of New York,” is not sufficient to give the Circuit Court of that circuit jurisdiction on the ground of citizenship of the parties, when the record nowhere discloses the plaintiff’s citizenship.